ICRC databases on international humanitarian law
  • Print page
Commentary - Art. 95. Part III : Captivity #Section VI : Relations between prisoners of war and the authorities #Chapter III : Penal and disciplinary sanctions #II. Disciplinary sanctions
    ARTICLE 95. -- PROCEDURE: I. CONFINEMENT AWAITING HEARING


    [p.456] GENERAL REMARKS

    The corresponding provision in the 1929 Convention was contained in Article 47, paragraph 1 (1).
    The offences punishable by disciplinary measures are of a minor character, either because the offence itself is of no great importance, or because there is no criminal intent on the part of the offender. No disciplinary punishment may be awarded without a preliminary investigation (Article 96, paragraph 1 ), but that investigation will never be as complicated as a judicial enquiry, and in general there is no justification for any great delay between the time when the offence is discovered and the awarding of punishment. It is therefore seldom necessary to confine a prisoner of war awaiting hearing.
    This rule is recognized by most national legislations, especially that of the Anglo-Saxon countries on which the present provisions were largely based (2).

    PARAGRAPH 1. -- PROHIBITION OF CONFINEMENT
    AWAITING HEARING AND EXCEPTIONS THERETO

    As a general rule, it is forbidden to keep a prisoner of war accused of a disciplinary offence in confinement pending the hearing, and any exception to this rule must be substantiated. This is the novel feature of the principle stated here. The best way of avoiding any recurrence of previous abuse regarding confinement while awaiting hearing (3) [p.457] is obviously to forbid it. This prohibition is justified moreover by the considerations already stated, subject to certain specified reservations; most national legislations do not make provision for confinement while awaiting hearing in disciplinary matters.
    With regard to the needs of "the interests of camp order and discipline", this reference must be interpreted in a restrictive way if the prohibition is to be truly valid, for it presupposes that it is impossible to award punishment immediately, either because special circumstances make the investigation particularly difficult, or because there is no competent authority to conduct the hearing.

    PARAGRAPH 2. -- MAXIMUM DURATION

    The wording of Article 47, paragraph 1 , of the 1929 Convention was rather vague and gave rise to much abuse; the drafters of the new Convention therefore decided to specify that, whatever the circumstances, a prisoner of war accused of a disciplinary offence must be released after fourteen days confinement. This time equals half the maximum sentence of imprisonment applicable. The release obviously does not prejudice the ultimate findings, provided the time spent in confinement awaiting hearing is deducted in accordance with Article 90 .

    PARAGRAPH 3. -- SAFEGUARDS

    This provision is also new and is intended to prevent any recurrence of certain abuses committed during the Second World War (detention in special camps to which prisoners' representatives and Protecting Powers had no access, suppression of essential privileges and guarantees, etc.) (4).


    * (1) [(1) p.456] See below, p. 731;

    (2) [(2) p.456] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
    Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, p. 505;

    (3) [(3) p.456] See FREY, op. cit., p. 109 ff.; BRETONNI RE,
    op. cit., pp. 313-314;

    (4) [(1) p.457] See BRETONNI RE, op. cit., pp. 313-314;
    ' Report on the Work of the Conference of Government
    Experts, ' p. 208;