ICRC databases on international humanitarian law
Photo
of
Previous photo
Next photo
CLOSE
x
ICRC
Skip navigation
Home
|
What's new
|
Contacts
Language
Select one
Francais
Search
International Committee of the Red Cross
Treaties and States parties to such Treaties
Who we are
Who we are - International Committee of the Red Cross
Mandate and mission
Structure
Finances
Working for the ICRC
The Movement
History
Funds and medals
Contacts
What we do
What we do - ICRC activities on behalf of people affected by war
Visiting detainees
Protecting civilians
Reuniting families
Ensuring economic security
Water and habitat
Health
Cooperation with National Societies
Building respect for IHL
Safeguarding health care
Other activities
Where we work
Where we work - the ICRC worldwide
Africa
Americas
Asia & Pacific
Europe & Central Asia
Middle East
War & Law
War & Law - the legal basis for our action
Treaties and customary law
Contemporary challenges for IHL
Protected persons
Conduct of hostilities
Weapons
Emblem
IHL in domestic law
International criminal jurisdiction
IHL and other legal regimes
Resource centre
Resource centre - Search
Publications and films
Photos
Maps
International review
Annual report
IHL databases
Library and research services
ICRC Archives
Events
Other sites
Gift shop
Video newsroom
Search
Treaties and Documents
1949 Conventions and Additional Protocols, and their Commentaries
By date
By topic
By State
Historical Treaties and Documents
By date
By topic
By State
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Commentary -
Art. 102. Part III : Captivity #Section VI : Relations between prisoners of war and the authorities #Chapter III : Penal and disciplinary sanctions #III. Judicial proceedings
[p.476] ARTICLE 102
. -- PROCEDURE: I. CONDITIONS FOR VALIDITY OF
SENTENCE
The principle of the assimilation of prisoners of war to the armed forces of the Detaining Power in court and procedural matters was already set forth in Article 63
of the 1929 Convention (1). The present Article supplements it by requiring respect for the provisions of the Convention relating to judicial proceedings. In any case of doubt which might be to the disadvantage of prisoners of war, these provisions (which are imperative and are contained in Articles 82
to 108) must outweigh the corresponding provisions in the legislation of the Detaining Power, and the latter must in any event afford as a minimum the safeguards specified in the Convention. This interpretation is also clear from the text itself (2).
Article 84
should also be borne in mind; its first paragraph states that a prisoner of war may be tried only by a military court, unless the laws of the Detaining Power expressly provide otherwise. Paragraph 2 of Article 84
confirms the last phrase of the present provision, by expressly forbidding the Detaining Power to bring a prisoner of war before any court which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and makes a reference to the safeguards provided for under Article 105
.
Under the present Article, the Detaining Power must respect not only the provisions of Article 105
, but also all the provisions of the present Chapter. The rules of the Convention therefore outweigh national legislation and the States party to the Convention must modify their own legislation if necessary, and in particular their military penal code, in order to respect the minimum standards set forth in Chapter III (Articles 82
to 108). If one or other of these provisions is not observed, then there are grounds for appeal, pursuant to Article 106
.
* (1) [(1) p.476] See below, p. 735;
(2) [(2) p.476] The last phrase is categorical: " -- A
prisoner of war can be validly sentenced only ... if,
' furthermore, ' the provisions of the present Chapter
have been observed.";