ICRC databases on international humanitarian law
  • Print page
Commentary - Art. 20. Part II : General protection of populations against certain consequences of war
    ARTICLE 20. -- HOSPITAL STAFF


    [p.157] This Article underwent many important changes during the preliminary work on the Conventions. It began as a clause drafted by the Conference of Government Experts of 1947, who had wondered whether they should establish a system of protection for all the people engaged in the care of wounded and sick civilians or whether the protection provided should be confined to civilian hospitals. They decided to adopt the latter course (1).
    The next year the International Committee of the Red Cross, in the draft Convention submitted to the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference, included in Article 18 provisions which followed the ideas expressed by the experts very closely. The first paragraph of their draft proclaimed the principle of the protection of civilian hospital staff and drew up an identity card for use by the staff; use of the red cross emblem was not contemplated here as it was in the case of the hospitals themselves. The second paragraph laid an obligation on the hospital management to keep an up-to-date list of members of the staff and of patients.
    The XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (Stockholm 1948) after giving its approval to the marking of civilian hospitals with the red cross emblem, decided to go still further and adopted a new second paragraph authorizing the use of the distinctive sign by civilian hospital staff.
    The Diplomatic Conference concentrated its attention on deciding which category of civilian medical personnel were to be allowed to use the distinctive sign, but opinions differed widely. There were two opposing trends of opinion. Some delegates wished to go even further than the Stockholm text and to extend the use of the emblem to the authorities in charge of the public health and hygiene services, and to representatives of the civil defence services (2).
    Others wished on the contrary to restrict the use of the emblem by comparison with what was authorized under the Stockholm Draft.
    [p.158] The International Committee of the Red Cross explained its point of view in the following words, in the memorandum ' Remarks and Proposals ' (3), which it published just before the Conference:

    "Any widening of the applicability of the red cross emblem will inevitably entail a far greater risk of misuse and violation; this in turn might compromise the repute attaching to the emblem and undermine its very great significance and good name. Hitherto, the use of the emblem has been confined to a clearly defined category of persons who are subject to military discipline. Even in these circumstances, the prevention of misuse has met with no small difficulties. If, therefore, the use of the emblem is extended to ill-defined categories of civilians, scattered over the country, who are not subject to discipline, proper registration or strict supervision, the combating of abuse would become impracticable, and the consequences would be borne by those who are legally entitled to the protection of the emblem.
    Members of the army medical personnel were authorized to wear the emblem solely because they belong to the category of military personnel, that is to say, those who may lawfully be attacked.
    The law of nations however rests on the principle that hostilities should be confined to armed forces, and that civil populations should be generally immune. The whole economy of the new Civilian Convention derives from this acceptance. Since it is illegal to fire upon any civilian, clearly it is inadmissible to fire upon civilians in charge of the sick. Article 13 of the present Convention expressly states, in fact, that the parties to the conflict shall allow medical personnel of all categories to carry out their duties. To seek protection for certain categories of civilians would be an admission, at the outset, that the new Convention would not be respected in the case of other civilians; this would be a confession of poor faith in the new treaty, and would weaken its authority.
    No doubt the XVIIth Conference was prevented by want of time from studying all the aspects of the problem and from assessing the full effect of the proposed extension. An exception might perhaps still be made for the use of the emblem by the regular staffs of civilians hospitals, who are a well defined category of persons duly registered by the State and holding identity documents to this effect. If a protective emblem for all civilian medical personnel is still desired, however, it would be better to examine the possibility of using a special device, entirely distinct from the Red Cross emblem."

    While wishing to authorize the use of the emblem by further categories of people, the Conference was anxious to avoid increasing its use to an extent which would lower its value. It finally decided, therefore, to adopt the solution contained in the Article as it now stands, the main features of which are:

    [p.159] (a) restriction of the use of the distinctive sign to the staff of
    civilian hospitals, that is to a well defined category of people who
    are members Of an organized whole, which is subject to discipline and
    comparatively easy to keep under supervision;

    (b) restriction of the use of the emblem to occupied territory and zones
    of military operations.

    PARAGRAPH 1. -- PERMANENT STAFF

    This provision relates to the permanent staff of a civilian hospital, as opposed to its temporary staff which is dealt with in paragraph 3.

    1. ' Status and duties '

    To fall within the definition given in paragraph 1, staff must be regularly and solely engaged in the operation or administration of a civilian hospital as defined in Article 18 of the Convention.
    The stipulation that such staff must be regularly engaged in hospital duties excludes temporary staff; while the word "solely" bars them from doing any other work.
    These two conditions are cumulative. For example, a surgeon who works regularly in a hospital, but is not exclusively employed there because he devotes part of his time to his private practice, or again, voluntary laboratory assistants or auxiliaries, who only work at the hospital for part, of the day, or for one or two days a Week, would not be engaged "solely" in hospital duties and would consequently Hot be covered by paragraph 1 (4).
    The close connection with the Convention establishes between the hospital and its staff thus represents the first criterion.
    The description of the duties of the hospital staff provides us with further information. The paragraph refers to persons "engaged in the operation and administration of civilian hospitals, including the personnel engaged in the search for, removal and transporting of and caring for wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases". This form of wording, which contains a general idea -- operation and administration -- followed by a list,of four specific tasks, is restrictive in character. That does not mean that the persons concerned must be employed on one of those duties only. They may be assigned to several of these duties, provided that they do not include any not listed here.
    [p.160] The wording of the provision makes it quite clear that it covers the staff not only when they are in the hospital itself but also when they have to perform any duty away from the hospital buildings. If the hospital management, for example, were to send relief teams from its staff to the bombed areas after an air raid, to collect and care for the wounded and convey them to the hospital, the staff in question would be covered by Article 20 even while they were carrying out this duty outside the hospital.
    Whereas duties outside are subject to certain restrictions, those carried out inside the establishment are free from them. Thus protection is not only accorded to the staff in direct contact with the hospital patients, e.g. doctors and nurses, but to the whole of the staff necessary for the operation and administration of the hospital, including the people employed in the laboratories, the X-ray department, the dispensary, the domestic services, the kitchens, the cleaning services, etc. (5) The idea on which this rule is based is that a hospital is an organized whole which cannot function efficiently unless all its parts are working normally. People who are not part of the medical staff proper are nevertheless an integral part of a hospital, since without their help it could not provide the services expected of it (6). In this category also, personnel must be employed regularly and solely in a hospital.
    Many hospitals have auxiliary enterprises attached to them, such as farms. What is the legal status of the staff employed on such farms? Can they be considered as "persons regularly and solely engaged in the operation and administration of civilian hospitals"? We do not think they can. There is not, between such staff and the hospital patients, the close connection upon which the Convention insists, whereas such a connection does exist in the case of the medical and administrative staff, who generally live under the same roof as the patients in the hospital; they thus form with the latter a single community linked by a common purpose. For that reason Article 20 should be interpreted as limited in application, in that the words "operation" and "administration" must be taken to refer only to the hospitals themselves and not to auxiliary undertakings.

    2. ' Respect and protection '

    The permanent staff of a civilian hospital are to be "respected and protected". This is the traditional form of words, used since 1906 in the First Geneva Convention, and already used in Article 18 .
    [p.161] If hospital staff are to enjoy immunity they must naturally abstain from any participation, even indirect participation, in hostile acts. It was seen in Article 19 that the protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled would cease if they committed acts harmful to the enemy.

    PARAGRAPH 2. -- IDENTIFICATION OF PERMANENT STAFF

    1. ' Identity card '

    To prove their right to wear the armlet marked with the protective emblem, members of hospital staff will carry an identity card.
    The card must show the occupation and status of the bearer, give his surname, first names and date of birth, indicate to which hospital he belongs, and specify whether he is a member of the medical staff proper or of the administrative staff.
    Another essential factor in identification is the photograph of the bearer which must be attached to the card.
    On the other hand the stipulation that identity cards should carry finger prints, contained in the Stockholm draft, was dropped for the sake of convenience by the Diplomatic Conference (7).
    A further condition imposed by the Convention is that the card must be embossed with the stamp of the responsible authority. It is that stamp which makes the card authentic. It will be noted that the word "embossed" -- i.e. stamped by pressure -- is used, experience having shown that ordinary ink stamps may wear off and are fairly easy to imitate.
    The Conference decided not to specify what is meant by the responsible authority, in order to leave the system the necessary flexibility. Each State will be free to determine the competent authority as an internal matter. The essential is that the use of these identity cards should be regulated by the State, acting in full awareness of its responsibility.

    2. ' The armlet '

    The permanent staff of civilian hospitals are to be recognizable by an armlet "bearing the emblem provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field". That emblem is a red cross on a white ground.
    It has already been shown that this provision is an important innovation by comparison with the law as it previously stood, as it [p.162] extends to a further category of person the benefit of an emblem until then exclusively reserved to medical personnel of the armed forces.

    A. ' Description of the armlet. ' -- The distinctive emblem being a red cross on a white ground, there is no necessity, in theory, for the armlet itself to be white.
    It would be very desirable, however, to provide the hospital staff with a white armlet bearing a red cross, as this is the custom everywhere for the medical personnel of the armed forces (8). Indeed such armlets are the only ones which give good visibility, owing to the contrast of colours.
    The armlet is to be water-resistant. This precaution n, which is intended to keep it in good condition, is obviously not indispensable.
    As in the case of the red cross emblem in general, the form and dimensions of the armlet are not specified -- a rigid definition might have opened the way to dangerous abuses, as attempts might have been made to justify attacks against persons protected by the armlet, by alleging that the emblems were not of the prescribed dimensions.
    It is laid down, in the same way as in the case of military medical personnel, that the armlet is to be worn on the left arm, because it is desirable that it should be worn in a stated position, where the eye will naturally look for it. Here again, a belligerent could not reasonably claim the right to deny protection to a medical orderly who for some plausible reason wore the armlet on his right arm.

    B. ' Issue of armlets. Stamp. ' -- The Convention stipulates that the armlets are to be issued by the State (9). Since the competence and, consequently, the responsibility of the State is thereby established, it remains for the legislators in each country to produce regulations governing the use of that competence.
    Since the armlets are only to be worn in occupied territory or in zones of military operations, it seems essential that the State should delegate its power to issue armlets. An area may be transformed quite unexpectedly into a zone of military operations, and that would make a distribution of armlets a matter of particular urgency. It is important therefore that the armlets should at all times and in all places be available for hospital staff. That would not appear to be possible unless distribution were largely decentralized. Primarily it is hospital managements who would no doubt be entrusted with the task. Such decentralization of the issue of armlets may, it is true, encourage [p.163] abuses, but it nevertheless seems necessary, if the provision in the Convention is to be put into operation rapidly. Hospital managements must be conscious of their responsibility and exercise strict and constant supervision over their staff.
    It is above all necessary to ensure issue to the proper persons. It is important that the armlet should only be worn by those entitled to do so under the Convention, but the armlet alone will not suffice for that. As has been said, nothing is easier than to make an armlet and put it on. Even if such an armlet was worn for honest motives in order to bring help to the wounded, its wearer could be punished. The belligerents must have reliable guarantees.
    Consequently an armlet will not be of any value and cannot be legitimately worn unless it has been stamped and issued by the State. That is a compulsory and absolute condition. Issue alone is note nough The fact of its issue by the State must be shown by an official mark. The Article does not say what authority is entitled to stamp armlets; in actual practice it will probably be the body which is made responsible for issuing them.

    C. ' Conditions governing the wearing of the armlet. ' -- The wearing of the armlet, like the carrying of the identity card, is only envisaged in occupied territory and areas where military operations are taking place.
    Occupied territory means an enemy territory from which one of the belligerents has succeeded in expelling the armed forces of his adversary and over which he has established his authority. Occupation may extend to the whole territory of a country or to a portion only.
    The expression "zones of military operations" refers primarily to the area where fighting is taking place. But it may also apply to areas in which military authorities are given certain powers and restrictions are placed on the movement of civilians, in areas, for example, where there are troop movements but not fighting, and even in those where there is no actual movement of troops but in which the High Command wishes to be able to move them at short notice. As a rule areas of military operations are fixed expressly by decree. It is thus the State which decides, with full authority, where and when the armlet may and must be worn (10).
    Bombing is undoubtedly a military operation and the possibility of its use on an extensive scale may lead to the idea of a zone of military operations being interpreted as covering the whole of the territory of the belligerents. Such a broad interpretation, however, [p.164] does not accord with the idea behind this provision; for the fact of being exposed to bombing is not in itself sufficient to turn a territory into a "zone of military operations". Contact must, on the contrary, be established with the enemy's land forces, or at least it must be imminent. It is then that the wearing of an armlet is warranted; it is then that it can actually fulfil its protective role by helping the wearer to move about and preventing him from being arrested by the invader. That is what distinguishes the armlet from the signs marked on civilian hospitals which, as has been seen, are above all intended to preserve the hospital buildings from the effects of attack from the air.
    In addition to this territorial restriction, the Convention lays down a second condition: namely that the armlet can only be worn by permanent hospital staff While carrying out their duties; this means that members of the staff are not authorized to wear the armlet when they are on leave, on their holidays for example, or when they go out in the evening, but only while they are actually working in the hospital or out on one of the special duties mentioned in paragraph 1 (11).
    This restriction on the wearing of the armlet is based on the idea that there should be a close connection between the distinctive sign and the duties it is intended to protect. Hospital staff do not enjoy special protection on their own account, but because of the humanitarian work they are doing. Besides, the restriction in question is likely to reduce the risk of abuse; for it is difficult, if not impossible, to supervise the wearing of the armlet when personnel are off duty.
    Attention should also be drawn to the fact that this restriction applies only to the armlet and not to the identity card, which may always be carried by members of the hospital staff, even when they are on leave.

    PARAGRAPH 3. -- TEMPORARY STAFF

    1. ' Status and duties '

    Whereas the permanent staff are employed at all times in a hospital, this paragraph refers to a special category of personnel who are only employed there temporarily. The Convention describes them as "other personnel", meaning all the people working in a hospital without being regularly or solely employed there -- such people in fact as a surgeon who has a private practice, but goes regularly to the hospital to carry out operations, or an auxiliary nurse who goes to help in the hospital two afternoons each week, or again a night watch [p.165] man who has another job during the day. What all these people have in common is that their work at the hospital is not their only occupation; they are not therefore covered by paragraph 1. It would have been going too far, however, to deprive them of special protection While they were working in the hospital. Paragraph 3 was designed to extend the application of paragraph 1 for their benefit.
    A condition which applies to this category of staff is that they should belong to that organized whole, with its ranks and grades, known as a hospital. In their case too the deciding factor is their employment in a hospital; temporary personnel must be subordinate to the management of the hospital: the management must be able to give them administrative orders while they are Working for the hospital.
    It does not seem possible to conclude from the fact that paragraph 3 does not again mention the four specific outside tasks listed in paragraph 1, that temporary personnel are only protected while on duty inside the hospital. That list develops and clarifies the words "operation and administration of civilian hospitals", and the use of the same terms again in paragraph 3 tacitly implies that the same list holds good. The only criterion on which the Diplomatic Conference wished to base the distinction between the two categories of staff was the nature of the connection between the hospital and its staff, and not the nature of the services rendered (12). The application of paragraph 3 does not therefore depend on whether the temporary staff Work in the hospital itself or whether they are engaged on one of the duties mentioned in paragraph 1, i.e. in searching for, removing, transporting and caring, outside the hospital for wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases. They will be protected in either case.

    2. ' Respect and protection '

    Temporary staff must be respected and protected (13) in the same Way as the permanent staff. The fact that they are giving their services to a hospital raises them to the same level as members of the permanent staff and makes them equally worthy of special protection.
    They will, however, be granted immunity only while they are working in the hospital; it will cease as soon as they have reverted to their usual occupation, and will again be granted when they are once more engaged on their hospital duties.
    It is, lastly, obvious that both temporary and permanent staff must strictly abstain from taking any part, direct or indirect, in the hostilities.

    [p.166] 3. ' Identification '

    I. ' The armlet '

    A. ' Conditions covering the use of the armlet. ' -- Temporary staff will be entitled to wear the armlet "as provided in and under the conditions prescribed in this Article, while they are employed on such duties." This sentence means first and foremost that the armlet can only be worn in occupied territory and in zones of military operations, since temporary personnel could not conceivably be given wider rights than the permanent staff.
    It also means that the armlet worn by temporary personnel will be similar in its essential features to that worn by the permanent staff: it must be issued and stamped by the State; it must be water-resistant and must be marked with a red cross on a white ground; it must, lastly, be worn on the left arm (14).
    It is then stipulated that the armlet may only be worn while the Wearer is employed on one of the duties listed in paragraph 1. This restriction is similar to the one in the previous paragraph, where it is stated that the armlet shall be worn by permanent staff only While they are carrying out their duties. Whereas the point of this restriction is easy to see in the case of temporary personnel (since such personnel can only reasonably claim that they are entitled to wear the armlet while they are engaged in their hospital duties, and not while they are doing their other work) it is more difficult to see the significance of the Provision in the case of permanent staff.

    B. ' Differences in regard to the wearing of the armlet by permanent staff and temporary personnel. ' -- The draft Article submitted to the Diplomatic Conference by Committee III (15) gave all civilian hospital staff, permanent and temporary, the right to wear the armlet, but limited this right to the actual time during which they were on duty.
    The Plenary Assembly of the Conference had to consider amendments to the Article, tabled jointly by several delegations; they were adopted by a slight majority, giving the Article its present wording (16).
    The amendments were accompanied by the following written explanation of the reasons for submitting them:
    [p.167] "In the case of hospital personnel the protection of the red cross, etc., emblem is at present extended by Article 18 to all personnel regularly engaged in hospital duties. This would cover all part-time employees, e.g. persons who devote a few hours a day to work in hospitals but who engage in other activities, such a work in munition factories, during the rest of the day. It is clearly wrong that such persons should wear red cross, etc., armlets and receive full protection while engaged in factory work, and it is therefore proposed that the full protection of the Article should be restricted to persons "regularly and solely" engaged in hospital work.
    To cover other hospital employees, e. g. part-time workers, it is proposed to add a new paragraph affording them full protection and entitlement to wear the armlet while they are actually engaged in hospital work." (17)

    It will be seen from this explanation that the authors of the amendments wish to divide the staff into two categories: permanent staff, who would be entitled to wear the armlet at all times, and temporary staff, who would only be protected by the armlet When they were actually carrying out their duties in a civilian hospital. The explanation clarifies the Article in a very satisfactory manner, and if no other explanation had been given it would have been comparatively simple to arrive at an interpretation in accordance with the author's intentions. One of the delegations which had proposed the amendments in question made a statement, however, before the Plenary Assembly, which seems to contradict what was said above. The statement was as follows:

    "In the Geneva Convention the protection of medical personnel rests on the early conception of Henry Dunant that they are outside the fight; they take no part in the actual fighting, and their position is that of looking after the victims of the battle. In the same way if we are to maintain effective protection for those who look after civilian sick and wounded we must secure that the persons protected are not, in fact, actually fighting in the war against the enemy.
    Now it is perfectly possible -- maybe it did indeed happen -- that doctors or other staff of hospitals engaged during part of the day or even during the full day in looking after wounded and sick felt their patriotism demanded that in their spare time they should take a more active role in resisting the enemy: if medical personnel in a hospital become involved in that kind of operation, then the difficulty of protecting them while occupied with their hospital duties will be tremendously increased. Therefore we propose that in the first paragraph of the Article the words "and solely" should be added after "regularly" so that the full-time staff of hospitals shall be precluded from taking part in activities incompatible with their hospital duties." (18)

    [p.168] That indicates that it was indeed the intention of the authors of these amendments to prevent members of the staff of civilian hospitals, including members of the permanent staff, from engaging in resistance Work against the occupying forces during the time when they were not at the hospital. Now, it is hard to see how that could be achieved without restricting the wearing of the armlet to the time when those concerned were on hospital duty, either inside the hospital or outside.
    The proceedings of the Diplomatic Conference do not therefore make it possible to determine with any certainty what the legislators intentions were. The exact significance of the distinction between the two categories of staff remains somewhat obscure (19).
    Nevertheless it would seem possible to draw certain conclusions concerning the interpretation of the Article after studying the text in the light of the discussions which produced it. It is possible to state, in a general way, that the undoubted intention of the Diplomatic Conference in distinguishing two categories of staff was to give each of them a different status. It did not succeed in bringing out this distinction clearly, because of the expressions it used. The distinction will therefore have to be made in the national legislation of each country. In our opinion the following general rules might help to produce a satisfactory solution of the problem; they take account of the presumed wishes of the legislator, while being at the same time compatible with the wording of the Article.

    1. Temporary staff should wear the armlet only while actually carrying
    out hospital duties, either inside the hospital or outside it when
    entrusted with one of the tasks mentioned in paragraph 1.

    2. It would seem reasonable that permanent staff should be recognized as
    having the right to make rather freer use of the armlet. Members of
    the permanent staff who do not live in the hospital might, for
    example, be authorized to wear the armlet when going directly to and
    fro between their homes and the hospital. Their journey to and fro
    between their homes and the hospital might be considered, by a free
    interpretation of the text, to be part of their duty and would,
    consequently, be covered by the words "while carrying out their
    duties". Such a solution would appear to be logical and sensible, and
    the application of any legal provision should be based on logic and
    good sense.

    [p.169] II. ' Identity card. '

    Temporary staff as well as permanent staff will carry an identity card to prove that they belong to a civilian hospital and have the right to wear the armlet.
    The card has the same features as the identity card carried by the permanent staff. It should therefore contain the following particulars and items: the name of the bearer, his photograph and the embossed stamp of the issuing authority (20). It is also stipulated that the identity card carried by temporary staff shall state the duties on which they are employed.

    PARAGRAPH 4. -- NOMINAL LIST OF HOSPITAL STAFF

    The management of every civilian hospital must keep an up-to-date nominal list of all the hospital staff, both permanent and temporary, specifying the duties of each of them.
    This measure is indispensable for purposes of supervision. It will enable the managements of civilian hospitals to ensure that the armlet is not being misused.
    Moreover, since the list in question must be made available tO the competent authorities -- those of the country concerned or of the occupying forces, when they so request -- they will be in a position to verify at any time that the armlet is being used only by those entitled to wear it. A nominal list, always kept up-to-date, would therefore appear to be a means of control which is indispensable to the authorities entrusted under national laws of application with the task of ensuring that the armlet is not misused. That task will often be a difficult and very responsible one, but it is a necessary corollary to the extension of the right to use the Red Cross emblem to new categories of persons.


    Notes: (1) [(1) p.157] See ' Report on the Work of the Conference of
    Government Experts, ' Geneva, 1947, pp. 72-73;

    (2) [(2) p.157] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
    Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 632 and
    819;

    (3) [(1) p.158] See ' Remarks and Proposals, ' pp. 72 and 73;

    (4) [(1) p.159] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
    Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 705 and 706
    and 819; see also ' Commentary ' on para. 3 below, p. 164;

    (5) [(1) p.160] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
    Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, p. 819;

    (6) [(2) p.160] See ' Commentary I, ' p. 219;

    (7) [(1) p.161] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
    Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 633 and
    705;

    (8) [(1) p.162] See ' Commentary, ' Vol. I, p. 310;

    (9) [(2) p.162] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
    Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-B, pp. 396-397;

    (10) [(1) p.163] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
    Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, p. 819;

    (11) [(1) p.164] For the exact meaning of the expression "while
    carrying out their duties" see also pp. 166-168;

    (12) [(1) p.165] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
    Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-B, pp. 395-397;

    (13) [(2) p.165] For the meaning of these terms see above,
    p. 160;

    (14) [(1) p.166] For further details on this subject, see p.
    161;

    (15) [(2) p.166] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
    Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, p. 851;

    (16) [(3) p.166] Ibid. Vol. II-B, p. 391;

    (17) [(1) p.167] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
    Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. III, p. 109;

    (18) [(2) p.167] Ibid., Vol. II-B, pp. 395-396;

    (19) [(1) p.168] The distinction drawn in the First Geneva
    Conference of 1949 between permanent and temporary medical
    personnel (see ' Commentary, ' Vol. I, pp. 218-224)
    undoubtedly influenced the decision of the Conference to
    adopt the same solution in the present Convention. See in
    this connection, ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
    Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-B, p. 396;

    (20) [(1) p.169] For fuller details concerning the items on the
    identity card, see above, p. 161; It should therefore contain the following particulars and items: the name of the bearer, his photograph and the embossed stamp of the issuing authority (20). It is also stipulated that the identity card carried by temporary staff shall state the duties on which they are employed.

    PARAGRAPH 4. -- NOMINAL LIST OF HOSPITAL STAFF

    The management of every civilian hospital must keep an up-to-date nominal list of all the hospital staff, both permanent and temporary, specifying the duties of each of them.
    This measure is indispensable for purposes of supervision. It will enable the managements of civilian hospitals to ensure that the armlet is not being misused.
    Moreover, since the list in question must be made available tO the competent authorities -- those of the country concerned or of the occupying forces, when they so request -- they will be in a position to verify at any time that the armlet is being used only by those entitled to wear it. A nominal list, always kept up-to-date, would therefore appear to be a means of control which is indispensable to the authorities entrusted under national laws of application with the task of ensuring that the armlet is not misused. That task will often be a difficult and very responsible one, but it is a necessary corollary to the extension of the right to use the Red Cross emblem to new categories of persons.


    Notes: (1) [(1) p.157] See ' Report on the Work of the Conference of
    Government Experts, ' Geneva, 1947, pp. 72-73;

    (2) [(2) p.157] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
    Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 632 and
    819;

    (3) [(1) p.158] See ' Remarks and Proposals, ' pp. 72 and 73;

    (4) [(1) p.159] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
    Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 705 and 706
    and 819; see also ' Commentary ' on para. 3 below, p. 164;

    (5) [(1) p.160] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
    Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, p. 819;

    (6) [(2) p.160] See ' Commentary I, ' p. 219;

    (7) [(1) p.161] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
    Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 633 and
    705;

    (8) [(1) p.162] See ' Commentary, ' Vol. I, p. 310;

    (9) [(2) p.162] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
    Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-B, pp. 396-397;

    (10) [(1) p.163] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
    Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, p. 819;

    (11) [(1) p.164] For the exact meaning of the expression "while
    carrying out their duties" see also pp. 166-168;

    (12) [(1) p.165] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
    Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-B, pp. 395-397;

    (13) [(2) p.165] For the meaning of these terms see above,
    p. 160;

    (14) [(1) p.166] For further details on this subject, see p.
    161;

    (15) [(2) p.166] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
    Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, p. 851;

    (16) [(3) p.166] Ibid. Vol. II-B, p. 391;

    (17) [(1) p.167] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
    Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. III, p. 109;

    (18) [(2) p.167] Ibid., Vol. II-B, pp. 395-396;

    (19) [(1) p.168] The distinction drawn in the First Geneva
    Conference of 1949 between permanent and temporary medical
    personnel (see ' Commentary, ' Vol. I, pp. 218-224)
    undoubtedly influenced the decision of the Conference to
    adopt the same solution in the present Convention. See in
    this connection, ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
    Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-B, p. 396;

    (20) [(1) p.169] For fuller details concerning the items on the
    identity card, see above, p. 161;