INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS
Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law
PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW TREATIES AND THEIR NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION
Achievements and activities in the countries of the Americas in 2005
Document prepared by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) for the information of the Member States of the Organization of American States
January, 2006
1 The mission of the ICRC
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance. It directs and coordinates the international relief activities conducted by the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in situations of conflict. It also endeavours to prevent suffering by promoting and strengthening humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles. Established in 1863, the ICRC is at the origin of the Movement.
Legal bases
The work of the ICRC is based on the 1949 Geneva Conventions for the protection of war victims and their Additional Protocols of 1977, the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and the resolutions of International Conferences of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. At the prompting of the ICRC, governments adopted the initial Geneva Convention in 1864. In the years since, the ICRC, with the support of the entire Movement, has persistently urged the governments to adapt international humanitarian law to changing circumstances, particularly as regards developments in means and methods of warfare, with a view to providing more effective protection and assistance for the victims of armed conflict. Today almost all States are bound by the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which, in times of armed conflict, protect wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of the armed forces, prisoners of war and civilians. Two Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions were adopted in 1977: Protocol I protects the victims of international armed conflicts, while Protocol II protects those of non-international armed conflicts. These Additional Protocols codify the rules that protect the civilian population against the effects of hostilities. Currently, around two-thirds of all States are bound by these Protocols. The legal bases of any action undertaken by the ICRC can be summarized as follows: in the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I, the international community gives the ICRC a mandate in the event of international armed conflict. In particular, the ICRC has the right to visit prisoners of war and civilian internees. The Conventions and Additional Protocol I also confer on the ICRC a broad right of initiative. In situations of non-international armed conflict the ICRC also has a right of initiative recognized by the States and enshrined in the four Geneva Conventions. In the event of internal disturbances and tensions and in any other situation that warrants humanitarian action, the ICRC has a right of humanitarian initiative, which is recognized in the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and allows it to offer its services to a government, without that offer constituting an interference in the internal affairs of the State concerned. The role of the ICRC is to "[...] work for the faithful application of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts […]".
The information in this report is not exhaustive. This report only includes the information submitted to the ICRC as at December 31st 2005. Further information may be requested from the Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law (International Committee of the Red Cross, 19 Avenue de la Paix, CH-1202 Geneva), from the Advisory Service, Unit for Latin America, in Mexico City, (ICRC Mexico, Calderón de la Barca 210, Col. Polanco, 11550, Mexico, D.F.) or from any other ICRC delegation in the Americas. (1st edition)
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
A. Activities of States regarding international humanitarian law
Victims of armed conflicts
1. Participation in applicable treaties
The four 1949 Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol I of 1977 The International Fact-Finding Commission Additional Protocol II of 1977 Additional Protocol III of 2005 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict
2. National implementation of treaties concerning the victims of armed conflicts
Protection of the emblems Missing persons
War crimes
1. Participation in applicable treaties
Applicable provisions of the Geneva Conventions and additional Protocol I Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity
2. National implementation of treaties concerning the repression of war crimes
Weapons
1. Participation in applicable treaties
Biological weapons Chemical weapons Conventional weapons Non-Detectable Fragments Mines, booby traps and other devices Incendiary weapons Blinding laser weapons Explosive remnants of war The 2001 amendment Anti-personnel mines Weapons and the environment
2. National implementation of treaties concerning weapons
Chemical and biological weapons Anti-personnel mines
3 Availability of weapons
Cultural property in the event of armed conflicts
1. Participation in applicable treaties
1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 1954 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 1999 Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the event of Armed Conflict
2. National implementation of treaties concerning the protection of cultural property
Dissemination of international humanitarian law
Integration of international humanitarian law by the armed forces Integration of international human rights law and humanitarian principles by security and police forces Integration of international human rights law and humanitarian principles by security and police forces
National bodies for the implementation of international humanitarian law
B. Activities of international, inter-American and regional organizations concerning international humanitarian law
Organization of American States
General Assembly Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs Department of International Legal Affairs
Inter-American Human Rights System
Inter-American Court of Human Rights Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Inter-American Institute of Human Rights
The Caribbean Community (CARICOM)
C. Advisory activities in the Americas carried out by the ICRC
4
INTRODUCTION
National implementation of international humanitarian law witnessed significant progress in the Americas during 2005.
On the one hand, there was an increase in the number of States Parties to the main treaties related to this law. There were twenty new ratifications of various instruments that govern topics as essential to the protection of the victims of armed conflicts as the penal repression of war crimes, the banning of recruiting children for combat, the protection of cultural property against the effects of armed conflicts or the restraints imposed by law to the use of certain specially harmful weapons.
Thus, the States in the region displayed a strong commitment to international humanitarian law, and this positions the hemisphere above the world average regarding participation in the different treaties.
On the other hand, the American States have made a substantial effort to implement the obligations provided for in the treaties they have signed. This resulted in many highly positive results in the development of national measures concerning the application of international humanitarian law.
Thus, during the period outlined, there was an increasing number of bills that, if passed, will punish the worst violations of international humanitarian law, i.e. war crimes. Nowadays, these crimes still inflict suffering that is as indescribable as it is unacceptable. By signing the four 1949 Conventions, the States pledged to have such crimes punished by their own courts, irrespective of where they are committed, and by whom. Such obligation has been supported by the establishment of international criminal courts, the statutes and case law of which pinpoint critical aspects that national parliamentarians must take into account in order to ensure the effective punishment of war crimes. By the end of 2005, fourteen Latin American States and one Caribbean State were in the process of adapting their criminal legislation to international law requirements.
Also, the national measures aimed at protecting cultural property in case of armed conflict achieved commendable success. Perhaps the renewed attention on this topic, thanks to the fiftieth anniversary of the 1954 Hague Convention – which was celebrated in the Americas with two important meetings, one in San Salvador in June 2004 and another in Buenos Aires in March 2005 –, contributed to the adoption of a host of measures to identify the cultural heritage in the region and to strengthen the respect and the legal protection accorded to it, including by raising awareness among the different sectors of the government and the public opinion.
The dissemination, or rather the integration, of international humanitarian law by the different education levels –both professional and general– has been consistently upheld by the States in the region.
This further consolidated the ongoing processes that are striving to integrate this law permanently and across the armed forces' doctrine and practices. Thirteen Latin American States made specific progress in this regard during the period under review.
The effort to have national measures adopted in order to aid in the dissemination and integration of international humanitarian law is not restricted to the military sector. During 2005, the achievements of a large number of universities –which gave courses on international humanitarian law as part of a subject or as a stand-alone course– particularly
5 stand out in the Americas. It should be noted that, by the end of 2005, the number of such courses was growing steadily throughout the region.
Besides, it should be highlighted that interministerial commissions contributed frequently and decisively to the activities on international humanitarian law application.
These commissions are bodies established by many Governments in the region with the aim of building their ability to comply with the commitments undertaken in the international humanitarian law field. Judging by the results, these commissions enable the States to work more efficiently by rationalizing resources and concentrating competences that are usually scattered among several government departments and other institutions, such as universities or the National Societies of the Red Cross. Besides, given their essentially technical nature, these commissions can consistently keep their focus on international humanitarian law, regardless of the situation at any given moment. By the end of the year, sixteen States in the region had implemented these mechanisms and two more had taken specific steps towards formally establishing them in the near future.
Overall, the balance in the region is quite positive , both in terms of State participation in treaties and of the activities undertaken to apply the treaties' provisions, and considering the establishment of structures such as the international humanitarian law commissions.
However, a closer look into the national implementation of treaties reveals that there still is a significant gap between international requirements and their implementation. This means that many of the efforts undertaken have not yet yielded concrete results.
This prevents the States from fully complying with their commitments. This situation causes concern, because it has a negative impact on the respect for international humanitarian law, thus weakening the protection offered to the victims of armed conflicts. In order to be efficient, such protection calls for active engagement not only on the part of conflicting parties, but also on the part of a much wider range of players. Preventing and responding to the suffering caused by armed conflict is everybody's responsibility. But only when everybody is furnished with the national measures enabling prompt responses, can it be expected that the horrors of war will not occur over and over again.
In this regard, it is worth mentioning the legislative reforms aimed at ensuring that national criminal law is able to punish the violations of international humanitarian law. With very few exceptions, in spite of the several bills mentioned above, the obligations in force in this field have not yet been included in the national legislations in the region.
In some regions of the continent, for example in the English-speaking Caribbean, the lack of national measures as basic as laws that translate the Geneva Conventions into national acts (Geneva Conventions acts) jeopardizes the development of more specific steps and may even undermine the credibility of international humanitarian law dissemination.
Throughout the continent, thousands of families still ignore the whereabouts of their loved ones who disappeared in connection with an armed conflict or any other situation of armed violence. Many were victims of forced disappearances. Many disappeared in combat. Still others disappeared in unclear circumstances. The different States took actions, including the establishment of tracing mechanisms and criminal procedures. But in many cases these efforts failed to successfully meet the humanitarian need still faced by the missing persons' families.
Therefore – and without pretending to be exhaustive –it can be said that there are many national measures yet to be developed so that the States in the region can comply with their international commitments.
6
The General Assembly of the Organization of the American States (OAS) renewed its support to this endeavour. On occasion of its thirty-fifth ordinary session in Fort Lauderdale, in June 2005, it adopted several resolutions encouraging the States to adhere to humanitarian law treaties and to take the necessary steps to ensure their implementation at national level.
Among those resolutions, it is important to mention resolution AG/RES. 2127 (XXXV- O/05) on the promotion of and respect for international humanitarian law, complementing a series of eleven resolutions on this subject that began to be adopted in 1994.
Other resolutions from the said session delve into specific topics related to international humanitarian law. Specifically, the resolutions involved are AG/RES. 2072 (XXXV-O/05) on the promotion of the International Criminal Court, AG/RES.2105 (XXXV- O/05) on the support for action against anti-personnel mines in Ecuador and Peru, AG/RES.2106 (XXXV-O/05) on the support for the Program for Comprehensive Action against Anti-personnel Mines in Central America, AG/RES.2107 (XXXV-O/05) on The Americas as a Biological- and Chemical-Weapons-Free Region, AG/RES.2108 (XXXV-O/05) on the proliferation of and illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons in all their aspects, AG/RES.2125 (XXXV-O/05) on the study of the rights and the care of persons under any form of detention or imprisonment, AG/RES. 2134 (XXXV-O/05) on persons who have disappeared and assistance to members of their families, AG/RES.2140 (XXXV-O/05) on internally displaced persons, AG/RES.2142 (XXXV-O/05) on the Americas as an anti- personnel-land-mine-free zone and AG/RES.2143 (XXXV-O/05) on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.
With this report, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) wishes to place on record the activities undertaken and the results achieved in 2005 as to the national implementation of international humanitarian law in the region.
The ICRC was able to follow-up these processes through its Advisory Service, which offers the States specialized technical and legal advice.
This support was provided for within the framework of the mandate bestowed on the ICRC by the States as established in Article 5 (2) (c) of the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Pursuant to this article, the ICRC has to "work for the faithful application of international humanitarian law". That mandate was reasserted in Resolution 1 of the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, which endorsed the Final Declaration of the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims, adopted on September 1st 1993, and the recommendations drawn up by the Intergovernmental Group of Experts at a meeting held on 23rd -27th January 1995 in Geneva, Switzerland.
The Advisory Service works in a decentralized fashion with a team of experts based at ICRC headquarters in Geneva and legal advisors in various regions of the world. In the Americas, the Advisory Service works with nine advisors based in Bogotá, Buenos Aires, Guatemala City, Lima, Mexico City, Port of Spain and San José, who report to a coordinator based in Mexico City.
The ICRC wishes to thank the OAS and its Member States for the highly constructive dialogue held throughout 2005, which contributed to enhance the dynamics of the national implementation of international humanitarian law and consolidate the standards of the organization in the region. In this regard, it fostered a favourable environment for the protection of the victims of armed conflict as well as of other situations of internal violence not governed by international humanitarian law.
7
This having been said, the ICRC is aware that nowadays, the situation prevailing in Latin America and the Caribbean involves internal violence events which do not qualify as armed conflicts. They entail a high cost in terms of human lives, which are left unprotected because international humanitarian law is not enforced. The ICRC is not indifferent to the fate of the victims of such situations, and regularly takes action in their favour. The organization frequently notices many ambiguities concerning not only the rules that should limit the use of force but also the practices of the authorities that resort to it. The combination of these factors significantly increases risk for those involved in disturbances or tensions. Here lies a major challenge for the protection of persons in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Anton Camen Legal advisor for Latin America and the Caribbean Advisory Service
8
A. Activities of States regarding international humanitarian law
Victims of armed conflicts
International humanitarian law protects persons who do not or no longer take part in the hostilities. It also limits the means and methods of warfare. The principal rules of international humanitarian law are set down in the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and their two Additional Protocols of 1977.
1. Participation in applicable treaties
The four 1949 Geneva Conventions
The four Geneva Conventions have been ratified by all 35 States in the Americas and by 192 States worldwide.
Each of the four Conventions protects a specific category of victims of international armed conflicts:
• the First Convention protects the sick and wounded of armed forces in the battlefield; • the Second Convention protects the sick, wounded and shipwrecked of armed forces at sea; • the Third Convention protects prisoners of war; • the Fourth Convention protects civilians in the hands of an adverse power in an international armed conflict.
In addition, all four Conventions contain a common article 3, which protects persons who do not participate directly in the hostilities from the effects of internal armed conflicts.
The Geneva Conventions were supplemented by three additional Protocols.
Additional Protocol I of 1977
Additional Protocol I of 1977 applies in international armed conflicts. This instrument, besides developing the law applicable to protect victims of armed conflicts provided for by the four 1949 Geneva Conventions, sets down fundamental rules concerning the conduct of hostilities. Additional Protocol I has been ratified by 163 States throughout the world, 33 in the Americas. Two American States have still not ratified it.
The International Fact-Finding Commission
Article 90 of Additional Protocol I provides for the establishment of the International Fact- Finding Commission. This Commission is competent to inquire into any facts related to serious violations of the Geneva Conventions and of Protocol I and to facilitate, through its good offices, the restoration of an attitude of respect for international humanitarian law. The International Fact-Finding Commission could be a valuable mechanism to apply international humanitarian law. The States can accept its competence upon their adoption of Protocol I or at any subsequent time. Although 11 American States have accepted the competence of this Commission, it should be said that the American States made no progress in this field during 2005.
9 Additional Protocol II of 1977
Additional Protocol II of 1977 develops and supplements common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. It is the only treaty whose sole purpose is to regulate the protection of the victims of non-international armed conflicts.
Additional Protocol II has been ratified by 159 States throughout the world, 32 in the Americas. Three American States have still not ratified it.
Additional Protocol III of 2005
Additional Protocol III, concerning the adoption of a distinctive emblem, additional to the red cross and the red crescent, was adopted on December 8th, 2005 during a Diplomatic Conference held by the Swiss Government in its capacity as depositary of the Geneva Conventions.
The adoption of the Third Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions is a major development in international humanitarian law. On the one hand, the new emblem will strengthen the protection of the armed forces' medical services and the Red Cross and Red Crescent's humanitarian workers in certain situations, and, on the other, it will facilitate the adhesion of some National Relief Societies to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and foster the universalization of the Movement.
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict
The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child is particularly relevant to the protection of the victims of armed conflicts. It seeks to prevent any person under the age of 18 from being recruited to participate in an armed conflict.
The Optional Protocol has been ratified by 102 States throughout the world. Twenty-two American States are parties to this instrument.
During the period outlined, and as far as the Americas are concerned, it is worth stressing that Nicaragua deposited its instrument of ratification on March 17th, and Colombia followed on May 25th, 2005.
2. National implementation of treaties concerning the victims of armed conflicts
Protection of the emblems
States are bound to prevent and punish by means of their domestic law any misuse of the red cross and red crescent emblems and designations (or their imitations), as well as the new emblem adopted within the Third Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions on December 8th, 2005.
The use of the emblem is strictly regulated by international law. Only a very small group of users is entitled to use the emblem, under a system of clearances provided for in the treaties.
The States must adopt national regulations on the definition and identification of recognized and protected emblems and they must also designate the national authorities responsible for overseeing, for example, the appointment of the persons authorized to use the emblems and the purpose of their use.
10 In this regard, national legislation regulating the use of the red cross and red crescent emblems and the emblem adopted by the Third Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions is especially important, because these emblems are often the only means of protecting the victims of armed conflicts.
During 2005, the American States significantly developed their domestic rules concerning the protection of the emblems, in order to abide by international requirements in force.
• In Colombia, the regulations concerning the protection of emblems provided for in Act No. 875 of January 2nd, 2004, has been strengthened by Executive Order 138 of January 25th, 2005, which regulates the above mentioned act. Executive Order 138 appeared in the Official Gazette on January 27th, 2005.
• In Honduras, the Act on the Protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Emblem was published in the Official Gazette on March 2nd, 2005, through Executive Order No. 199-2004.
• In Mexico, a bill for the use and protection of the red cross and red crescent designation and emblem was passed by the Mexican Lower House on December 14th, 2005, and submitted to the Senate, which is expected to enact it in 2006.
• In Ecuador, a bill on the use and protection of the red cross and red crescent emblems was submitted to the National Congress on October 19th, 2005.
• In Peru, a bill for the use and protection of the red cross and red crescent emblems is being drafted by the Peruvian National Committee on the Study and Application of International Humanitarian Law.
• In the Dominican Republic, the National Standing Committee for the Application of International Humanitarian Law passed, in the second semester of 2005, a bill on the protection of the emblem, which is expected to be submitted to Congress.
• In Venezuela, the Venezuelan Red Cross and the Ministry of Defence are working on a bill on the use and protection of the red cross and red crescent emblems.
Besides the progress mentioned for the period under review, the following States have specific legislation on the protection of the emblem, namely Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay and Uruguay.
Missing persons
The persons who are missing or unaccounted for are those whose family ignore their whereabouts or whose disappearance has been attributed, based on reliable information, to be the result of an armed conflict or a situation of internal violence.
It has been acknowledged that the uncertainty concerning the fate of people who are missing or unaccounted for is a tough reality for countless families, including relatives and close friends who therefore also become victims of this situation. As long as they ignore whether their loved ones are alive or dead, they cannot put an end to the violent events that altered their lives, and this significantly hinders the possibility of resuming their ordinary lives, including the process of adjustment and reconciliation at the personal or community level.
11 Given this problem, the ICRC undertook a process to address the plight of persons unaccounted for due to an armed conflict or a situation of internal violence and their relatives. This process included drafting an ICRC report on missing persons and their relatives and holding an International Conference of governmental and non-governmental experts in Geneva, on February 19th-21st, 2003. The conference yielded a series of observations and recommendations to thoroughly deal with the problem of missing persons and their families; such observations and recommendations were taken into account by the Agenda for Humanitarian Action approved by the International Conference of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent.
In 2003 the members of the 28th International Conference of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent approved, through Resolution 1, the Agenda for Humanitarian Action mentioned above. Specifically, this Agenda sets a series of objectives to be achieved by the Conference members during the 2004- 2007 period. The general objective 1 focuses on respecting and restoring dignity to people missing due to armed conflicts or other situations of internal violence, and to their relatives. This implies finding out the fate of missing persons, providing assistance to their relatives, and preventing the disappearance of other persons.
At global level, on December 20th, 2004 the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 59/189 "Missing persons", through which it urges those States which take part in armed conflicts to adopt all such measures as may be appropriate to prevent the disappearance of persons in connection with the said conflict and to ascertain the whereabouts of people who are unaccounted for in connection with the said situation. In addition, this resolution reaffirmed the right of families to know the fate of their members unaccounted for in connection with armed conflicts.
At the regional level, it is worth mentioning that the General Assembly of the Organization of American States adopted, during its 35th ordinary session – on June 7th, 2005 – the resolution AG/RES. 2134 (XXXV-O/05) entitled "Persons who have disappeared and assistance to members of their families". With this resolution, the General Assembly suggests a general approach to the problem of missing persons. It strives to respond to the suffering caused by disappearance linked to armed conflicts or any other situation of internal violence, including forced disappearances and circumstances in which persons disappear as a consequence of hostilities.
The resolution particularly urges the States to take specific steps at a national level in order to prevent disappearances and to facilitate the unveiling of the truth concerning missing persons. These steps include the notification of persons deprived of their freedom, the respect of their right to keep in touch with their relatives, the importance of granting personal identification means, the establishment of forced disappearance as an offence in the national legislation, the determination of the fate of missing persons and the management of human remains. Besides, the resolution stresses the importance of taking into account the economic, psychological, social and legal needs of missing persons' relatives.
At the national level, the following efforts specially stand out:
• Colombia enacted act 971, regulating the urgent tracing mechanism, on July 14, 2005. The main purpose of the urgent tracing mechanism is to prevent the crime of forced disappearance.
• Guatemala announced the upcoming establishment of a national commission to search for persons who disappeared during armed conflicts. On the other hand, the Guatemalan Institute of Comparative Studies in Criminal Science carried out a
12 study based on which the ICRC was able to draw up a series of recommendations to set down in the national legislation measures to prevent the disappearance of persons. These recommendations are being studied by the Guatemalan Commission for the Application of Humanitarian International Law. • In addition, in Guatemala, a forum called "The right to know" was held on November 22nd - 23rd, 2005, to deal with the different problems faced by the relatives of missing persons in Mexico and Central America. This meeting was attended by representatives of the Governments of Guatemala, Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras and Panama, national and international organizations actively involved in the topic of missing persons, and organizations involved in missing persons' human and family rights.
• In El Salvador, the Executive Order No. 45 dated October 5th, 2004, established the Inter-Institutional Commission for the Search of Boys and Girls who are Missing due to the Armed Conflict in El Salvador.
• In Panama, the National Attorney General's Office Resolution No. 22, dated March 2nd 2005, established the position of the Special Investigation Agent, in order to investigate the cases of forced disappearance.
War crimes
The four Geneva Conventions, as well as Additional Protocol I, include provisions that compel the States Parties to repress a series of grave breaches by means of their domestic law (articles 49, 50, 129 and 146 respectively of the four Geneva Conventions.) These grave breaches are described in articles 50, 51, 130 and 147 respectively of the four Geneva Conventions, and in articles 11 and 85 of the additional Protocol, and they are considered war crimes. Furthermore, as per articles 49, 50, 129 and 146, States must search for individuals accused of having committed or having ordered the commission of war crimes, regardless of their nationality and the place where such crimes were committed, in order to have them appear before the States' own courts, or to transfer them to another State for trial.
States must also adapt their domestic law to set down definitions of criminal activities, such as the responsibility of superiors, pursuant to the article 86 of the additional Protocol I. Furthermore, article 88 of the Protocol binds the States Parties to provide all possible assistance in criminal procedures concerning war crimes, including extradition.
Besides the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and the additional Protocol I, the States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitation to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity must also take into account the provisions included in these two treaties when they include war crimes in their domestic legislation.
1. Participation in applicable treaties
Applicable provisions of the Geneva Conventions and additional Protocol I
It should be remembered that all American States are Parties to the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, they pledged to adapt their criminal law to these treaties in order to repress the war crimes included in the articles mentioned before.
Moreover, the 33 American States which are Parties to additional Protocol I pledged also to repress other war crimes included in this treaty.
13
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Domestic criminal law should ensure the repression of war crimes. Based on this statement, the States established the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998, a treaty aimed at setting a principle of complementarity between the competence of the national jurisdictions and the International Criminal Court. According to this principle, the International Criminal Court will have competent jurisdiction only if States cannot or will not judge the perpetrators of the war crimes mentioned by the Court's Statute.
As per article 8 of the Statute, the Court is competent to judge the perpetrators of war crimes. The Statute represents a breakthrough in this field, because apart from the grave breaches provided for in the four Geneva Conventions, it acknowledges that there are other violations of international humanitarian law that constitute war crimes. Furthermore, article 8 establishes that some war crimes are committed during any kind of armed conflict, whether international or domestic.
After the Dominican Republic deposited the instrument of ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on May 12th, 2005, followed by Mexico on October 28th, 2005, the number of States Parties to this treaty rose to 100 throughout the world. In the Americas, 22 States are Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity
The 1968 Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity is another tool to strengthen the repression system for war crimes. This Convention encompasses the statutory limitations to both public action and penalties and it is retroactive, as it requires existing limitations established by other laws or rules to be abolished.
There are 49 States all over the world which are Parties to the Convention on the Non- Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, 8 of them in the Americas. The number of ratifications of this instrument in this region has remained unchanged.
2. National implementation of treaties concerning the repression of war crimes
As mentioned before, the States Parties to the Geneva Conventions and their additional Protocol I must ensure, by means of their domestic law, the repression of the war crimes mentioned in these treaties.
Furthermore, the States which are also Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court can include in their domestic law the war crimes mentioned in article 8 of the Statute, should they wish to ensure that their jurisdiction prevails over the Court's pursuant to the principle of complementarity.
Therefore, it is advisable that the States Parties to the several treaties mentioned should adapt their domestic law to take into account all the criminal behaviours mentioned by international law and assess the degree of compatibility among these instruments.
To this regard, it should be noted that certain war crimes mentioned by the additional Protocol I, which States must incorporate in their domestic law, were not included in the
14 Rome Statute. On the other hand, it seems interesting that the description of some crimes mentioned in the Rome Statute is worded differently as compared to very similar crimes mentioned in Protocol I.
When including war crimes in their domestic law, States should also bear in mind that, according to the international practices in force, these crimes must be punished regardless the international or domestic nature of the armed conflict.
It should be stressed that, although all the States in the region are Parties to the four Geneva Conventions, almost all are Parties to Protocol I and a vast majority have ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, very few countries so far have been able to adapt their domestic criminal law accordingly, i.e. they are unable to repress all the war crimes identified by international law.
However, Latin America has witnessed an intense activity during 2005 towards the inclusion of war crimes in domestic law. The different government branches and bodies are debating many projects; these debates frequently include the national commissions for the application of international humanitarian law. During 2005, certain reforms were examined or proposed in order to include war crimes in the domestic law of the following States: Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela.
The reform of criminal procedures undertaken by these States can also represent an appropriate opportunity to incorporate in domestic criminal law the breaches mentioned by other treaties concerned with international humanitarian law. That is the case with the following treaties dealing with weapons:
• Article VII of the 1993 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction provides for the obligation to repress the offences included in that instrument.
• Along the same lines, article 14 of the Protocol on Prohibitions or restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-traps and other Devices, as amended on May 3rd 1996, provides for criminal penalties.
• The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on their Destruction, dated September 18th 1997, establishes in its article 9 the duty to provide for criminal penalties applicable at a national level in order to guarantee the implementation of the Convention.
Weapons
The parties to an armed conflict do not have an unlimited right to choose the means and methods of warfare. International humanitarian law prohibits in particular the use of weapons that have indiscriminate effects or that cause superfluous damage or unnecessary suffering. Based on these criteria, several instruments of international humanitarian law intend to restrict or ban the use of certain weapons.
15 1. Participation in applicable treaties
Biological weapons
The use of biological weapons is banned since 1925 by the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. The development, production and stockpiling of such weapons were banned by the 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction.
The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare has been ratified by 133 States worldwide and 25 in the Americas. No State in the region ratified this instrument in 2005.
The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction has been ratified by 152 States worldwide and 32 in the Americas. No State in the region ratified this instrument in 2005.
Chemical weapons
Chemical weapons were completely prohibited by the 1993 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction. Their use was banned since 1925 by the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare.
This treaty has been ratified by 169 States worldwide, 31 from the Americas. On June 3rd, 2005, Grenada deposited its instrument of ratification. Antigua and Barbuda and Honduras both deposited their instruments of adhesion and ratification on August 29th, 2005.
Conventional weapons
The 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects constitutes the framework treaty applicable to the use of conventional weapons. This instrument details the principles of international law applicable to the use of means of warfare in general. The provisions concerning the limitation or the prohibition of certain weapons can be found in protocols annexed to this treaty.
The Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects has been ratified by 100 States worldwide and 20 from the Americas. Venezuela adhered to this instrument on April 19th, 2005. It should be noted that there is a significant difference between Latin American and English-speaking Caribbean States concerning the degree of participation in this treaty.
Non-Detectable Fragments
The Protocol on Non-Detectable Fragments (Protocol I) was annexed to the Convention on Conventional Weapons in 1980. This treaty bans the use of any weapon whose main effect is to injure by means of fragments which cannot be detected in the human body using X-rays. There are 97 States Parties to this instrument worldwide, 20 from the
16 Americas. Venezuela notified its consent to be bound by this Protocol on April 19th, 2005.
Mines, booby-traps and other devices
The Protocol on Mines, Booby-traps and other Devices (Protocol II) was annexed to the Convention on Conventional Weapons in 1980. A new Protocol was developed in 1996, which expands the regime applicable to said weapons and further enlarges its scope to include non-international armed conflicts (Protocol on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on Mines, Booby-traps and other Devices, as amended on May 3rd, 1996).
Protocol II has been ratified by 87 States worldwide, 17 from the Americas. Venezuela notified its consent to be bound by this Protocol on April 19th, 2005.
The Protocol on the Prohibition or Restriction on the Use of Mines, Booby-traps and other Devices as amended on May 3rd, 1996 has been ratified by 85 States worldwide, and 18 American States. Venezuela notified its consent to be bound by this Protocol on April 19th, 2005.
Incendiary weapons The Protocol on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III) was annexed to the Convention on Conventional Weapons in 1980. This Protocol defines incendiary weapons as any weapon primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to person through the action of flame or heat, such as flame throwers. The Protocol also bans the use of such weapons against the civilian population, attacks against any military objective located within a concentration of civilians with air-delivered incendiary weapons, and attacks against forests or other kinds of plant cover with incendiary weapons, except when such natural elements are used to conceal combatants or other military objectives. Protocol III has been ratified by 93 States worldwide and 19 American States. Venezuela notified its consent to be bound by this Protocol on April 19th, 2005.
Blinding laser weapons
The Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV) was annexed to the Convention on Conventional Weapons in 1995. The protocol bans the use of laser weapons specifically designed to cause permanent blindness, as well as their transfer to any State or any other entity. The treaty further provides that, in the employment of laser systems, the Contracting Parties shall take all feasible precautions to avoid the risk of causing permanent blindness. This Protocol has been ratified by 81 States worldwide and 16 American States. There were no further ratifications in the region in 2005.
Explosive remnants of war
The Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (Protocol V), annexed to the Convention on Conventional Weapons in 2003, seeks to respond to one of the most serious humanitarian problems today. Explosive remnants of war are a scourge among the civil population, which is particularly exposed to this ordnance in a post-conflict situation. The Protocol defines explosive remnants of war as ordnance that has been used or fired but has failed to explode (unexploded ordnance) and ordnance that has been left behind in the battlefield (abandoned explosive ordnance). The protocol does not apply to weapons defined under Protocol II, as amended (mines, booby-traps and other devices). Under this treaty, State Parties undertake to remove explosive remnants of war wherever they may be, to inform the population about the perils these entail and to arrange cooperation efforts among States in this field.
17 Significant progress has been made in 2005 regarding State Parties participation in the Protocol, since 10 States have informed their consent to become bound by the Protocol worldwide, thus bringing the number of State Parties to 13. In the Americas, Nicaragua was the first to become a Party to Protocol V on September 15th 2005.
The 2001 amendment
The Amendment to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects was approved in 2001, with a view to further applying the Convention on Conventional Weapons and annexed Protocols to non-international armed conflicts. The Amendment reflects the status of current international law, according to which regulations on weapons must be applicable to armed conflicts of all types. There is no justification to the use in non-armed conflicts of certain weapons that are prohibited in international armed conflicts due to the unspeakable suffering they cause.
The Amendment to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects was ratified by 44 States worldwide and 5 American states. Peru ratified it on February 14th, 2005.
Anti-personnel mines
The 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction seeks to definitely eradicate these weapons. It is based on customary rules of international humanitarian law applicable to all States, which prohibit the use of weapons that do not distinguish between civilians and combatants or cause superfluous injury or unnecessary damage.
This Convention has been ratified by 147 States worldwide and by 32 American States, while three States in the Americas have not yet ratified it.
Weapons and the environment
The 1976 Convention on the Prohibition of the Military or Any Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD Convention) is an international law disarmament instrument specifically relating to the protection of the environment in the event of hostilities. The Convention prohibits the use of the environment as a means of warfare. It is supplemented by certain provisions of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions that prohibit attacks damaging the environment. This means that the environment may not be used as a means of warfare nor may it be the object of attack.
The 1976 Convention has been ratified by 72 States worldwide and by 14 States in the Americas. No new ratifications took place in the region in 2005.
2. National implementation of treaties concerning weapons
In addition to the above mentioned criminal penalties to be adopted at the national level, States must take several steps in order to ensure compliance with the treaties concerned with weapons.
Chemical and biological weapons
Articles IV and VII, respectively, of the 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin
18 Weapons and their Destruction and the 1993 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction bind States Parties to adopt national legislative and administrative measures to enforce these treaties. As to the 1993 Convention, States must also designate the competent national authorities who will liaise with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
The importance of adopting national implementation measures to suppress biological and chemical weapons was reasserted by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States through resolution AG/RES. 2107 (XXXV-O/05), "The Americas as a Biological- and Chemical-Weapons-Free Region”, which was adopted during its thirty- fifth ordinary session, on June 7th 2005. This resolution urges Member States to comply with the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, dated April 28th, 2004, which requires the adoption and application of appropriate and efficient laws which prohibit any non-State actor to manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport, transfer or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery.
At a national level, Canada, the United States and St. Kitts and Nevis have specific legislation on biological weapons. Moreover, Canada, Colombia, Cuba and the United States have specific legislation on chemical weapons.
On December 27, 2005, Brazil enacted Act Nº 11.254, establishing administrative and criminal punitive measures applicable in the case of activities banned by the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction.
Anti-personnel mines
Under Article 9 of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on their Destruction, States Parties must adopt all applicable legal, administrative or other measures, including criminal penalties, in order to fully enforce this treaty. In addition, to facilitate compliance, the States Parties to the Convention, gathered in late 2004 at the Nairobi Summit on a Mine-free World, adopted the 2005-2009 Nairobi Action Plan, which proposes a series of 70 steps to put an end to the scourge of anti-personnel mines. The Plan suggests specific measures in the following areas: universal ratification of the Convention, the destruction of the existing mine stockpile, the clearance of mined areas, assistance to victims, and other special issues necessary to achieve the objectives set forth by the Convention.
Now that the States have made substantial progress on the destruction of mine stockpiles and on the clearance of mined areas, it is essential that they take concrete actions to help victims of anti-personnel mines.
In this regard, the Nairobi Plan particularly underscores the measures that States must adopt in order to assist the victims of anti-personnel mines, namely to improve the medical care provided to these victims and their rehabilitation, and to take care of their psychological and social support needs, their economic and social integration as well as the respect for their human rights, taking age and gender issues into consideration.
On December 2nd, 2005, the States Parties to the Ottawa Treaty adopted the Declaration of the Sixth Meeting of the States Parties, known as "The Zagreb Declaration", where States reaffirmed their pledge to eradicate anti-personnel mines by complying with the Nairobi Action Plan. The Zagreb Declaration stresses some of the developments in the Americas: by way of example, the Declaration asserts that Uruguay has met its
19 obligation to destroy its stockpile of anti-personnel mines, while Guatemala and Suriname have fulfilled their obligation to clear the mined zones under their jurisdiction.
At a regional level, during its thirty-fifth ordinary session, held on January 7th, 2005, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States adopted resolution AG/RES. 2142 (XXX-O/05) "The Americas as an Antipersonnel-Land-Mine-Free Zone”, which encourages States to make statements on goals related to mines that remain to be met and to cooperate with the OAS Mine Action Team, through its mine clearance, stockpile destruction, mine risk education, and victim assistance programs. On the other hand, this resolution encourages States to support the Programme for Integral Action against Anti- Personnel Mines (AICMA as per its Spanish acronym) and invites States to participate in the Anti-Personnel Mine Register established under resolution AG/RES.1496 (XXVII- O/97).
In addition, during its thirty-fifth ordinary session –on June 7th, 2005- the General Assembly of the Organization of American States adopted two resolutions on the measures concerning certain areas specially affected by anti-personnel mines: Resolution AG/RES. 2105 (XXX-O/05) "Support for Action Against Antipersonnel Mines in Ecuador and Peru", and Resolution AG/RES. 2106 (XXXV-O/05) "Support for the Program for Comprehensive Action Against Antipersonnel Mines in Central America".
The following States in the region have enacted laws on anti-personnel mines: Belize, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago.
The Argentine Senate is still discussing a bill on anti-personnel mines, and the national administrations of Panama, Paraguay and Peru are also working on bills dealing with this topic.
Availability of weapons
It is recognized that the widespread availability of small arms and light weapons increases the risk of breaches of international humanitarian law during armed conflicts. Aware of the importance of this problem, in 2001 the States adopted a Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, within the framework of the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects. This instrument is an invitation to Governments to adopt a number of measures to more effectively control small arms and light weapons.
Furthermore, it should be recalled that the Agenda for Humanitarian Action, adopted by Resolution 1 of the 28th International Conference of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, proposes a series of steps to reduce the human suffering caused by the uncontrolled availability and the misuse of weapons (final objective 2.3 of the Agenda). In this regard, the Agenda proposes that States should make of the respect for international humanitarian law one of the fundamental criteria used to assess decisions on arms transfer, and further encourages them to incorporate this criterion into national laws or policies on arms transfers. In addition, the Agenda invites the States to make efforts in order to prevent the uncontrolled availability and misuse of small arms and light weapons, and to ensure that police and security forces are systematically trained in international humanitarian law and human rights law, especially on topics related to the responsible use of weapons. Finally, the Agenda invites the States to strive to reduce the demand and the misuse of weapons and to record and document the impact of armed violence.
20 On June 7th, 2005, during its thirty-fifth ordinary session, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States proposed –through its Resolution AG/RES. 2108 (XXXV-O/05) called "The Proliferation of and the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects"– a series of measures to remedy the problems posed by small arms and light weapons. Among other issues, the resolution invites States to implement national measures in order to apply the United Nations Programme of Action and it encourages the States Parties to apply the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials (CIFTA as per its Spanish acronym).
Cultural property in the event of armed conflict
International humanitarian law also seeks to protect the cultural heritage of nations from the effects of armed conflicts. This goal seems particularly relevant today, when many armed conflicts are ethnically motivated and marked by scorn for the adversary’s culture. The States have pledged to safeguard and respect cultural property from the effects of armed conflicts. They must respect such property both on their territory and on the territory of any other State Party, with a view to preventing it from being destroyed or damaged during an armed conflict, and abstain from acts that are harmful to such property.
1. Participation in applicable treaties
At present, the legal framework governing the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict consists of the rules on the protection of civilian objects and a series of specific rules set down in the Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions. Moreover, there are three key instruments specifically regulating this area:
1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict establishes a general framework for the protection of cultural property. The Convention states that safeguarding measures are to be adopted in order to protect cultural property. According to the Convention, all cultural property benefits from general protection against the effects of armed conflicts. In addition, the treaty provides for a special protection system.
Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 1954
The Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, adopted in 1954, is aimed at preventing the export of cultural property from occupied territories and regulates the deposit of cultural property in other States.
Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 1999
The main purpose of the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention, adopted in 1999, is to enhance cultural property protection in the event of armed conflict. To achieve its aim, the Protocol spells out the measures to be adopted by the States in order to safeguard cultural property, establishes an enhanced protection system for cultural
21 property of the greatest importance, and defines five serious violations of the Protocol which are punishable under national criminal law.
Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
It is worth noting that the Second Protocol provides for the creation of a Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Its main role is to apply the Second Protocol and grant enhanced protection to cultural property that is deemed cultural heritage bearing the utmost importance for mankind. The twelve members that make up this Committee, three of which represent Latin American States (Argentina, El Salvador and Peru), were chosen during the Meeting of States Parties to the Second Protocol held October 26th, in Paris. By establishing this Committee, the States Parties are now able to enhance the protection of their cultural property by including it in the List of Cultural Property under Enhanced Protection.
Progress made in the Americas during the past year is specially encouraging: Venezuela deposited its instrument of adhesion to the 1954 Convention on May 9th; on November 29th, Canada deposited its instrument of adhesion to the Protocol on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its instrument of adhesion to the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention. Guatemala and Brazil submitted their instrument of adhesion to the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention on February 4th and on September 23rd, respectively, and Peru deposited its instrument of ratification to that Protocol on May 24th.
Also worth of mention is judgment C-400 dated April 14th, 2005, passed by the Colombian Constitutional Court, which annulled Act No. 899 that permitted the deposit of the instrument of ratification of the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention due to procedural defects.
The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict has been ratified by 114 States worldwide, while the 1954 Protocol on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and the 1999 Second Protocol have been ratified by 92 and 36 States, respectively. There are 20 American States which are Parties to the 1954 Hague Convention, 16 which are Parties to the 1954 Protocol and 13 which are Parties to the Second Protocol. It is important to mention the remarkable difference between Latin American and English-speaking Caribbean States regarding their level of participation in these treaties.
2. National implementation of treaties concerning the protection of cultural property
Article 3 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and Article 5 of the 1999 Second Protocol bind the States Parties to adopt a series of national measures on this issue.
These measures include identifying and taking an inventory of cultural property, designating competent authorities, preparing safeguard measures and documents, such as evacuation routes, the establishment of shelters, on site protection measures, and including criminal penalties. In this regard, it is important to recall that both Article 85 (5) (d) of the Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions and Article 15 of the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention bind States Parties to provide for criminal penalties in their domestic law. The Second Protocol describes five specific criminal offences.
22
The American States have been particularly active in 2005 regarding the protection of cultural property.
• In March, the Argentine Republic and UNESCO, with the support of the International Committee of the Red Cross, organized the Regional Seminar "The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict: A Challenge and An Opportunity for Latin America and the Caribbean". More than 180 national and international experts offered a series of recommendations focused on the adoption of national measures to enhance the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict. Furthermore, it was stressed that such measures are also useful in the event of disturbances and internal tensions, as well as natural disasters.
• In addition, with the support of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Dirección Nacional de Museos (Museums General Directorate) of Argentina, reporting to the Secretariat of Culture of the City of Buenos Aires, carried out the "First Campaign for the Identification of Cultural Property”. A total of 14 monuments located in this city were identified with the protection emblem adopted by the 1954 Convention.
• In El Salvador, the Inter-Institutional Committee for International Humanitarian Law identified 8 cultural property items located in San Salvador with the emblem adopted by the 1954 Convention, the National Palace, the Anthropology Museum and the National Library, being some of them.
• In Mexico, national authorities conducted working meetings in March, October and December, with a view to adapting the domestic regulatory framework to meet provisions included in the 1954 Convention and its two protocols. It should be noted that, on December 13th, 2005, the Mexican Senate approved a draft Executive Order to reform and adopt the Federal Act on Archaeological, Artistic and Historical Monuments and Areas, with its discussion in the Lower House being still pending. This draft incorporates several provisions to apply the Convention and its Protocols.
• In Nicaragua, the National Commission for the Application of International Humanitarian Law identified the historical site known as Ruins of León Viejo with the emblem adopted by the 1954 Convention. It is important to add that León Viejo was declared World Cultural Heritage by UNESCO in 2000.
• In Paraguay, the Inter-Ministerial Commission for the Application of International Humanitarian Law launched the first campaign for cultural property identification, which started on November 3rd, 2005, by identifying with the protecting emblem the monument to independence located in the city of Asunción.
Dissemination of international humanitarian law
Under the terms of various provisions of the Geneva Conventions, their Additional Protocols and other instruments, States have undertaken to disseminate international humanitarian law in their countries as extensively as possible, both in peacetime and in times of war, and, in particular, to include the study thereof in their military -and, if possible, civil- education programs so that its principles may become known to the entire population.
Integration of international humanitarian law by the armed forces
23 The integration of international humanitarian law by the armed forces is a mandatory part of the national implementation of the treaties. It seeks to translate international rules into specific mechanisms that ensure the protection of people and property in the event of armed conflict. For members of the armed forces to act in accordance with the rules of international humanitarian law, these must be integrated in military doctrine, military training, instruction, behaviour, systematic operative procedures and choice of weapons.
Argentina has a national plan in the form of a series of hierarchically organized orders and provisions intended to ensure compliance with the dissemination and teaching of international humanitarian law at all levels.
The team established in mid-2005 by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to review and coordinate the implementation of the above-mentioned plan has checked its scope against an up-to- date status report on the integration of international humanitarian law prepared by the regional delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross. To date, this team has prepared an international humanitarian law handbook that has been given to the three armed forces. The handbook is being used on an interim basis, until its validation has been completed.
In Bolivia, during 2005, the armed forces integrated international humanitarian law as per the implementation schedule. This leads to concluding that the Bolivian armed forces have an ongoing programme to integrate international humanitarian law in their doctrine, instruction, and training and, if so required, in practice.
Under the supervision of the highest command, the General Inspectorate of the Armed Forces and the Directorate of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law reporting to the Ministry of Defence constantly ensure adequate integration of international humanitarian law in military doctrine, instruction and training. In 2005, the three forces completed the development of a methodology to integrate international humanitarian law in their rules and handbooks (doctrine), their instruction and their training. They are currently analysing proposals to integrate international humanitarian law in their Chiefs of Staff and troop training rules. These proposals, as well as those to be drafted in 2006, will be initially published as annexes to the respective handbooks. After a validation period, and depending on the budget available, the new handbooks and rules will be published, already including said proposals. As regards instruction and training, the integration of international humanitarian law is already being implemented in the major instruction and training centres.
In Brazil, the armed forces have provisions for the dissemination and teaching of international humanitarian law. The most significant development in 2005 was the consolidation of a sufficient number of high-level instructors specialized in international humanitarian law belonging to the three armed forces and the Ministry of Defence. The outcome of the last workshop held jointly by the ICRC and this group of instructors was a proposed guideline for integration of international humanitarian law by the armed forces. This proposal is now being debated within the Ministry of Defence for subsequent approval and submission to the three forces for consultation.
All Central American States and the Dominican Republic have an integration programme in place, which is based on guidelines that uphold the teaching of international humanitarian law as a stand-alone course at every level of military instruction; such training is provided by instructors trained by the armed forces themselves, under the supervision of a responsible agency. Nicaragua has promoted the role of the legal advisor as part of the work performed by the chiefs of staff and the decision-making process, and large units are now staffed with personnel trained in international humanitarian law and human rights.
24
Chile has a national plan under the form of a series of hierarchically organized orders and provisions that see to the dissemination and teaching of international humanitarian law at all levels; in addition, a study is being conducted on the status of integration of international humanitarian law into the armed forces.
As far as Colombia is concerned, during 2005 the Armed Forces complied with the guideline to integrate international humanitarian law as per the implementation schedule. This leads to concluding that the Colombian Armed Forces have an ongoing, fully owned programme to integrate international humanitarian law in their doctrine, instruction, training and practice (this being understood as any situation in which the Armed Forces exert their powers).
Under the supervision of the highest command, the Inspectorate of the Armed Forces constantly ensures compliance with the duty to properly integrate international humanitarian law into the military doctrine, instruction, training and practice. The three forces have completed the review of all their rules and handbooks (doctrine) and they have developed proposals to integrate international humanitarian law wherever they may deem it relevant. Validation and publication of these proposals has already started. All military instruction centres have included international humanitarian law in their curricula while concurrently integrating relevant international humanitarian law topics in all syllabus courses. All combat personnel must take a course in international humanitarian law and human rights at their training and retraining centres.
Ecuador has begun the development of a national integration plan by means of specific provisions that focus on the concept of integration. The Army's Polytechnic School, responsible for setting the training guidelines for the armed forces, has included a graded course in international humanitarian law in the curriculum and it is now integrating this topic across all military-related subjects.
In Mexico, 2005 has witnessed significant progress in the field of integration. First, international humanitarian law is being gradually integrated into instruction and training plans at all Regional Training Centres (CAR, Centros de Adiestramiento Regional); this is done through theoretical instruction followed by a training course in international humanitarian law and a troop exercise (at the battalion level) that presents incidents involving international law in a context of armed conflict. In addition, there is a gradual integration of theoretical aspects and practical training in international humanitarian law in the instruction and training plans of the Regional Basic Individual Training Centres (CABIR, Centros de Adiestramiento Básico Individual Regional), where the troops receive elementary training.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff of Paraguay have established a unit in charge of ensuring the implementation of their plan for the dissemination and teaching of international humanitarian law; this unit has also assessed the scope of such plan.
During 2005 the armed forces of Peru have complied with their guideline to integrate international humanitarian law as per their implementation schedule. The Peruvian armed forces have an ongoing programme to integrate international humanitarian law in their doctrine, instruction, and training and, if so required, in practice.
Under the supervision of the highest command, the Armed Forces Centre for International Humanitarian Law constantly ensures the proper integration of international humanitarian law into military doctrine, instruction and training. In 2005, the three forces completed the review of all their rules and handbooks (doctrine) and they have made proposals to integrate international humanitarian law where deemed relevant. These
25 proposals are currently under analysis for approval and subsequent publication. As regards instruction and training, the strategy adopted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and their Centre for International Humanitarian Law consists in integrating IHL (based on the experience gained with the integration into the handbooks) into instruction and training in a subsequent stage, scheduled for 2006.
Integration of international human rights law and humanitarian principles by security and police forces
The best protection to be offered to the potential victims of armed violence is to ensure the respect for the essential humanitarian principles when conducting operations, not only on the part of the armed forces, but also of security forces and the police. These essential principles stem not only from international humanitarian law but also from international human rights law. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to include the principles mentioned above in the training programmes for police and security forces, both in theory (knowledge and understanding) and in practice (techniques and implementation).
The integration of international human rights law by security and police forces is currently at different stages of development in several Latin American and Caribbean States. This integration must be seen in the instruction, doctrine, training and equipment of each police force, and it can be achieved by means of different activities that range from simple workshops to awareness raising or comprehensive integration programmes.
Argentina's Federal Police, Mexico's Federal Preventative Police and Federal District Police, five state police corps in Brazil, four police corps in Venezuela, and the national police forces of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Peru continued striving to integrate international human rights law into their instruction and training in 2005.
More specifically, 2005 has witnessed the significant progress made in the field of integration by the following police forces:
In Brazil, the Military Police of Rio de Janeiro, encouraged by the State Secretariat of Public Security, successfully completed a highly enriching programme for the integration of international human rights law.
Ecuador completed the implementation of an action plan defined by the Ministry of Homeland Security, and the National Police was able to produce the necessary documents to ensure the integration of these principles into the curricula taught at all its training schools. A doctrine review is scheduled for 2006, through the preparation of a police practice handbook that integrates international human rights law.
In Mexico, the Federal District Police stood out for developing an ambitious internal training program on Human Rights addressed to its operating staff, with the goal being to train 20,000 police officers in two years. Likewise, the complete curriculum offered by the Police Academy was reviewed, integrating international human rights law across all the courses taught. The new contents will be implemented as from 2006.
Integration of international humanitarian law in academic teaching
As regards university instruction, the incorporation of international humanitarian law into existing courses or as an independent subject in law, international relations, political science and journalism schools will enable future generations of leaders and opinion- makers to understand the relevance of that law, to become involved in its implementation and enforcement and to influence the humanitarian debate and development of the law.
26 The ICRC supports the efforts undertaken by the States to this end through a training programme in international humanitarian law for teachers at universities and other higher education institutions.
As of 31 December 2005, the integration of international humanitarian law in the study programmes of universities and other higher education institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean had had the following outcomes:
In Argentina, some 150 university teachers integrated international humanitarian law in some fifty schools in which they work and two new post-graduate courses in international humanitarian law were created in national universities during 2005.
In Bolivia, international humanitarian law was introduced in the regular syllabus of 10 mandatory subjects offered at the law schools of two universities in La Paz and one university in Sucre. Furthermore, the Judiciary Institute held a training course on international humanitarian law addressed to practicing judges, and it is working on the integration of this topic in training and refresher courses for judges.
In Brazil, over 40 teachers have been teaching international humanitarian law in law and journalism schools of twenty universities for the past four years.
In June 2005, the ICRC held a seminar on international humanitarian law in CARICOM Member States, bringing together 9 teachers who lecture on international law and international relations in 3 universities in Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago. International humanitarian law was included in the curricula of the law schools of two universities in Barbados and Suriname, the international relations schools in three universities in Jamaica, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago and in the school of social sciences in one university in Guyana.
Most of Chile's law schools have integrated this topic, which is taught by over 50 teachers. In 2005, the University of Chile included international humanitarian law as a stand-alone subject in the law undergraduate curriculum.
In Colombia, international humanitarian law is taught in 13 courses offered in the Judicial School and nine law schools.
In Costa Rica, the law school of one university included international humanitarian law in its curricula, and the efforts undertaken by other two institutions in this area are also beginning to render similar results.
A training seminar in international humanitarian law for university teachers organized by the ICRC in Antigua, Guatemala, gathered representatives from nine universities from Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico and Panama. Besides integrating international humanitarian law in the courses they teach, the teachers trained in this seminar cooperate as facilitators by encouraging the promotion of and respect for this law before the National Societies of the Red Cross, diplomatic academies, international humanitarian law enforcement agencies at the national level, and yet other academic institutions and universities.
In Ecuador, international humanitarian law was incorporated into the regular syllabus of two mandatory subjects and four elective courses taught at the law schools of 3 universities in Quito. Furthermore, the National Council of the Judiciary held three training courses on international humanitarian law addressed to practicing judges, and integrated this topic into its action plan for 2006.
27 In Guatemala, the law schools of two universities have incorporated the subject of IHL and are specifically involved in the organization of general activities to raise awareness on the respect for this law.
In Mexico, 3 universities integrated IHL into their law schools, and one of them organized an in-house course on international humanitarian law to train its teachers.
In Panama, one law school has not only integrated IHL into the education it offers, but also contributes to raising awareness on the importance of this subject among other institutions.
Over ten teachers in 5 law schools in Paraguay teach international humanitarian law topics in the course "Public International Law".
In Peru, international humanitarian law was integrated into the regular syllabus of 18 mandatory courses and 15 elective courses taught at the law and communication sciences schools of five universities in Lima. Furthermore, the National Judiciary Academy held three training courses on international humanitarian law addressed to practicing judges and included this topic in one of its courses.
In Uruguay, international humanitarian law is still being taught in the law and international relations curricula at the five most important universities.
In Venezuela, 28 law teachers from eight universities and two government agencies took part in the second seminar on international humanitarian law organized by the ICRC in early November and three universities now teach this law in their law schools, as well as in public international law and human rights courses.
National commissions for the implementation of international humanitarian law
As indicated throughout this report, taking a stance on international humanitarian law treaties and fully honouring the obligations that stem from such instruments require specialized knowledge and coordination among the different State agencies. This is especially true in connection with the adaptation of domestic law and the adoption of practical measures in many areas (ratification of treaties, integration of war crimes into domestic law, protection of emblems and cultural property, integration of international humanitarian law into the education of the different groups...). In order to respond to this challenge, a significant proportion of States worldwide have decided to establish committees specializing in the national implementation of international humanitarian law. Usually, such committees meet at inter-secretarial level and their members represent the different government bodies involved in the application of international humanitarian law rules (ministries of foreign affairs, defence, justice, culture, education) and other related institutions (National Societies of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, universities, the civil society.) It is important to mention that, in those countries where such committees have been established, the decision-making process to adopt national implementation measures turns out to be easier.
Nowadays there are sixteen committees of this nature in the Americas, in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic, Trinidad and Tobago and Uruguay.
In Ecuador, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs is still striving to obtain the issuance of an executive order to establish an international humanitarian law committee. Furthermore,
28 one government official from this country met with the Costa Rican International Humanitarian Law Committee to gather experience on the process of establishment and operation of this committee.
In Honduras, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs signed, on June 3rd, 2005, an Executive Order that provides for the creation of the "National International Humanitarian Law Committee of Honduras", which Order was submitted to the President of the Republic for enactment. In addition, government representatives participated in the "Meeting of National Committees of International Humanitarian Law from Central America, Panama and the Dominican Republic".
In 2005, the national bodies for the implementation of international humanitarian law carried out an outstanding level of activities.
It is important to mention that the Government of Nicaragua, supported by the International Committee of the Red Cross, held the "Meeting of National Committees on International Humanitarian Law from Central America, Panama and the Dominican Republic" which took place in the city of Managua on November 22nd – 23rd, 2005, and was attended by representatives of the committees from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Dominican Republic and representatives of the government of Honduras, as well as experts from the International Criminal Court and Peru's National Committee for the Study and Application of International Humanitarian Law. The participants reached a series of conclusions and issued a list of recommendations, which express their view that national bodies should work more closely with the legislative branch in order to promote ratification of treaties pending and facilitate criminal reforms that include the inclusion of war crimes in domestic legislation. Furthermore, the participants suggested that these bodies should advise and support States in their effort to achieve the goals concerning missing persons and weapons laid down in the Agenda for Humanitarian Action adopted in Resolution 1 of the 28th International Conference of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent held in 2003. Participants also recommended drawing up analytical reports on the level of application of international humanitarian law in each State, with a view to identifying topics for inclusion in the bodies' annual working plans.
The committees from Costa Rica and El Salvador met twice, on March 31st in San José and on July 12th in San Salvador, in order to generate a cooperation synergy, especially in connection with the protection of cultural property.
The committees from El Salvador, Nicaragua and Paraguay held events dealing with the identification of cultural property.
The committees from El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay and Uruguay are drafting bills on the integration of war crimes into their domestic law.
The committees from Argentina and the Dominican Republic are still working on the promotion of bills on the protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems.
Finally, the committees from Panama, Paraguay and Peru are working on bills on anti- personnel mines.
B. Activities of international, inter-American and regional organizations concerning international humanitarian law
29 The Organization of American States, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights and other regional or sub-regional organizations and institutions continued to strongly support the promotion of international humanitarian law in the Americas. During the period under review, such support was reflected in the following events:
Organization of American States
Several agencies within the Organization of American States have devoted a great deal of space to and produced many documents on humanitarian issues, international humanitarian law, and the national implementation of measures concerning such law, supported by the International Committee of the Red Cross. The relationship between the Organization of American States and the ICRC is based on the Cooperation Agreement that was signed on May 10th, 1996, and supplemented with a memorandum of understanding on April 3rd, 2003.
General Assembly
On June 7th, 2005, the General Assembly of the OAS adopted, on occasion of its thirty- fifth ordinary session held in Fort Lauderdale, United States, Resolution AG/RES.2127 (XXXV-O/05): "Promotion of and Respect for International Humanitarian Law".
In that resolution, Member States declared that one of the best ways to strengthen respect for international humanitarian law is the acceptance, dissemination and adoption of measures aimed at ensuring the national implementation of that law.
Particularly, the resolution urges the States to become Parties to all the treaties on international humanitarian law to achieve their universality and it stresses that, in order to put these treaties into practice, it is necessary to adopt the relevant legislative and administrative measures.
The following stand out among the national implementation measures that States should adopt under the resolution:
The description of the war crimes mentioned in the four Geneva Conventions and in Additional Protocol I, the establishment of the universal jurisdiction to judge the perpetrators of such crimes and the responsibility of superiors, regardless of whether the armed conflict in which such crimes are committed is considered international or not. Besides, the resolution urges the States to control the use and protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems, to disseminate international humanitarian law, to adopt precautionary and clarification measures regarding missing persons, to protect cultural property and to ban the recruitment of children under 18 to take part in hostilities. Finally, this resolution calls on the States to prevent and repress banned activities related to anti-personnel mines and to determine whether the use of the new weapons that any State may analyse, develop, acquire or adopt is contrary to international humanitarian law or not.
In addition to resolution 2127, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States adopted, during its thirty-fifth ordinary session, a series of resolutions concerned with international humanitarian law.
This is particularly the case of resolution AG/RES. 2134 (XXXV-O/05): "Persons Who Have Disappeared and Assistance to Members of Their Families". It is important to recall that this resolution seeks to clarify that dealing thoroughly with the issue of persons who have disappeared as a result of an armed conflict or any situation of internal violence
30 implies adopting measures to prevent this phenomenon and to shed light on past events, and taking into account the situation of the missing persons' relatives, who need support in various fields (economic, psychological, social and legal help)
Other important resolutions concerned with the application of international humanitarian law adopted by the General Assembly in 2005 are the following: Resolution AG/RES. 2072 (XXXV-O/05) "Promotion of the International Criminal Court", resolution AG/RES. 2094 (XXXV-O/05) "Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials", resolution AG/RES.2105 (XXXV-O/05) "Support For Action Against Anti-personnel Mines In Ecuador And Peru", resolution AG/RES.2106 (XXXV-O/05) "Support For The Program For Comprehensive Action Against Anti-personnel Mines In Central America", resolution AG/RES.2107 (XXXV-O/05) "The Americas As A Biological- And Chemical-Weapons- Free Region", resolution AG/RES.2108 (XXXV-O/05) "The Proliferation Of And The Illicit Trade In Small Arms And Light Weapons In All Its Aspects", resolution AG/RES.2137 (XXXV-O/05) "Support For The Work Of The Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism", resolution AG/RES.2140 (XXXV-O/05) "Internally Displaced Persons", resolution AG/RES.2142 (XXXV-O/05) "The Americas As An Antipersonnel-Land-Mine- Free Zone" and resolution AG/RES. 2143 (XXXV-O/05) "Protecting Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism."
Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs
Pursuant to the mandate bestowed by resolution AG/RES. 2052 (XXXIV-O/04) adopted on June 8th, 2004, the Permanent Council, with the support of the General Secretariat, entrusted to the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs the organization of a special meeting on international humanitarian law, which took place at the OAS headquarters on April 1st, 2005. This meeting offered an opportunity for analysis and exchange regarding the current concerns on international humanitarian law.
Such session was specially timely to deal with the problems of persons who have disappeared as a result of an armed conflict or any other situation of internal violence, weapons and international humanitarian law, the integration of IHL into military doctrines and handbooks, the future of independent humanitarian action and the major developments achieved in connection with the matters dealt with by resolution AG/RES. 2052 (XXXIV-O/04).
This session was attended by representatives of the Member States of the OAS, military experts, one representative of the Peruvian Ombudsman's Office and representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Department of International Legal Affairs
This Department fosters various fora for information exchange and reflection on international humanitarian law and its developments.
For instance, since 1973, the Inter-American Juridical Committee and the Department of International Legal Affairs organizes in Rio de Janeiro a course on international law addressed to young professionals from the OAS Member States who work in the fields of law and international relations. On occasion of the 32nd course, which took place on August 1st - 26th, 2005, the broad topic was the contribution of international agencies to current international law. The ICRC was invited to present two lectures on the contribution of the ICRC to international humanitarian law.
31 It should be noted that, since 1999, the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States, through the Department of International Legal Affairs, organises meetings on international law, pursuant to the "Panama Declaration on the Inter- American Contribution to the Development and Codification of International Law", adopted by the General Assembly through resolution AG/RES.12 (XXVI-0/96) and the "Inter-American Program for the Development of International Law", adopted through resolution AG/RES. 1471 (XXVII-0/97). The seventh edition of these international law meetings was held in Ottawa and it was organized together with the Law School of the Ottawa University on October 22nd – 26th. During the meetings a privileged space was reserved for international humanitarian law, through a discussion table on the national implementation of international humanitarian law, with experts from the Canadian Ministries of Justice and Defence, the Canadian Red Cross and the ICRC.
Finally, it should be mentioned that, through the Office of Legal Cooperation, the Department of International Legal Affairs offers to the public a section of its web page devoted to international humanitarian law. This web page contains information on the Organization's treaties and resolutions concerned with this law, documents issued by the special meetings held by the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs concerned with international humanitarian law, a table listing the national bodies for the application of international humanitarian law, links to the data base on national legislation related to international humanitarian law – created by the ICRC – and complete reports of experts meetings held by the OAS and the ICRC. This web page is available at: http://www.oas.org/juridico/spanish/dih.htm
Inter-American Human Rights System
Inter-American Court of Human Rights
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the ICRC hold a permanent dialogue on topics concerning the evolution and development of the fundamental rights that protect persons. In particular, in late 2005 both institutions coordinated efforts with a view to jointly organizing a meeting to reflect upon customary international humanitarian law.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the ICRC met several times during 2005 in order to strengthen their bonds and identify areas of mutual interest, such as rules common to international humanitarian law and international human rights law, with a view to enhancing the protection of persons under any circumstance.
Inter-American Institute of Human Rights
In 2005, the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights and the ICRC held a "Meeting of Experts on the Use of Force and the Protection of Persons in the event of Disturbances and Internal Tensions in Latin America and the Caribbean" in Lima, on June 13th-14th.
The main goal of this meeting was to outline strategies to adopt measures aimed at minimizing the risks to people's integrity and dignity in the event of disturbances and internal tensions. After analysing the trends and consequences of the use of force in these situations, the legal and regulatory framework applicable to the restoration of public order and to the protection of persons, the impact of the means employed by authorities and their level of preparedness, the attending experts issued a series of recommendations related to the legal framework applicable in the event of disturbances and tensions, the design of alternatives to the use of force, improvements in the level of
32 preparedness and the equipment available to the authorities, the outlining of clear mechanisms of individual accountability, and the consideration for the victims' needs.
On the other hand, it is worth noting that the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights asked the ICRC to take part in the 23rd Interdisciplinary Course on Human Rights, organized by said Institute, in San José, on August 18th – 29th. The broad topic of the course was "Democracy, Political Rights and Citizen Participation." Within the framework of the Jean Pictet Chair, the ICRC presented the module "Political Rights from the Perspective of International Humanitarian Law."
The Caribbean Community (CARICOM)
Throughout 2005, the CARICOM Secretariat and the ICRC cooperated to promote and implement international humanitarian law, with a view to facilitating the adhesion of Caribbean States to the applicable treaties in this field and the adoption of measures for their national implementation.
On February 10th – 11th, 2005, the ICRC attended the Eighth Ordinary Session of CARICOM Legal Affairs Committee, in Paramaribo, Suriname; this meeting constituted an opportunity to debate the content of model laws that facilitate the national implementation of the obligations that stem from the main treaties dealing with international humanitarian law.
On the other hand, on June 28th – 29th 2005 the Governments of Suriname and the Netherlands organized in Paramaribo a regional seminar on the application of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in CARICOM Member States. During the seminar, the ICRC presented its views on the integration of war crimes into domestic law.
Finally, it is worth noting that, throughout the year, the CARICOM and the ICRC have held a high-level dialogue with a view to achieving a cooperation agreement. This instrument will strengthen the bonds between both institutions and will pave the way for common strategies geared toward facilitating the ratification of international humanitarian law treaties and the adoption of the ensuing measures for their national implementation by CARICOM Member States.
C. Advisory activities in the Americas carried out by the ICRC
During 2005, the ICRC carried out many activities across Latin America and the Caribbean to provide legal assistance on international humanitarian law. It operated from its delegations in Bogotá, Buenos Aires, Caracas, Lima, Mexico and Port-of-Prince, with the support of its offices in Brasilia, Guatemala City, Port of Spain and San José.
As regards technical assistance, the ICRC worked with different government branches and agencies of the Latin American and Caribbean States on all the topics included in this report. The specific technical assistance activities undertaken were the following:
• Bilateral consultation between the ICRC's legal advisors and the national authorities in the region.
• Legal opinions on the compatibility between bills and international commitments, particularly with reference to international criminal law.
• Technical advice on the preparation of national reports dealing with the status of the national implementation of international humanitarian law in domestic law.
33
• Recommendations to integrate in domestic law measures to prevent the disappearance of persons in the event of armed conflicts or other situations of internal violence.
• Support to the national bodies for the application of international humanitarian law regarding the definition of the action plan, the training of their members, and the facilitation of the exchange among national bodies and any other topic of common interest.
• Compilation and exchange of information on the measures for the national implementation of international humanitarian law, through the data bank the ICRC's Advisory Service makes available to States and to anyone who may be interested. It should be mentioned that, during 2005, this data bank was updated, and now has information on all 35 American States. The data bank can be accessed at: http://www.cicr.org/ihl-nat
• Organization of and support to events dealing with international humanitarian law. In 2005, the ICRC organized and contributed, in particular, to the following seminars, meetings and courses:
"Eighth Ordinary Session of the CARICOM Legal Affairs Committee", Paramaribo, Suriname, February 10th-11th, 2005. The ICRC presented its views on measures for the national implementation of international humanitarian law.
"Regional Seminar: The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict: A Challenge and an Opportunity for Latin America and the Caribbean", held in Buenos Aires on March 2nd-4th, 2005, organized by Argentina's Secretariat for Foreign Affairs and the UNESCO, with the support of the ICRC.
"Special Meeting of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs on Current Topics regarding International Humanitarian Law", Washington, April 1st, 2005, organized by the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States.
"Working Meeting on Appropriate Measures that States Should Take to Cooperate with the International Criminal Court in the Investigation, Prosecution, and Punishment of the Perpetrators of War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, Genocide, and Crimes Against the Administration of Justice of the International Criminal Court", Washington, April 1st, 2005, organized by the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs, Permanent Council of the Organization of American States.
"Ibero-American Seminar on the implementation of the Statute of the International Criminal Court", Mexico City, April 6th-8th, 2005, organized by the Secretariat for Foreign Affairs, the European Union, the Ibero-American University, the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, the Myrna Mack Foundation, Movimundo, the Coalition for the International Criminal Court and the Mexican Coalition for the International Criminal Court. The ICRC presented its views on war crimes.
"Meeting of Experts on the Use of Force and the Protection of Persons in the event of Disturbances and Internal Tensions in Latin America and the Caribbean" in Lima, Peru, on June 13th-14th, 2005, organized by the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights and the ICRC.
"International Diploma on Human Rights", Mexico City, June 13th-August 26th, 2005, organized by the Mexican Senate, the Law School of the National Autonomous University
34 of Mexico and the National Commission on Human Rights. The ICRC presented a module on the national implementation of international humanitarian law.
"Conference: International Humanitarian Law and the Prohibition of the Use of Certain Weapons in the Event of Armed Conflict", Lima, Peru, June 16th, organized by the National Body for the Application of International Humanitarian Law, the Pontificia Universidad Católica of Peru and the ICRC.
"Regional Seminar on the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court", Paramaribo, June 28th-29th, organized by the Governments of Suriname and the Netherlands and the CARICOM Secretariat. The ICRC presented its views on the integration of war crimes into domestic law.
"International Seminar: Exchange of experiences on the implementation of the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture in Mexico", Mexico City, July 13th-14th, 2005, organized by the Secretariat for Foreign Affairs, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the European Union and the Association for the Prevention of Torture. The ICRC presented a paper on its activities concerned with the protection of detainees.
"23rd Interdisciplinary Course on Human Rights", San José, Costa Rica, July 18th-29th, organized by the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights. Within the framework of the Jean Pictet Chair, the ICRC presented the topic "Political Rights from the Perspective of International Humanitarian Law."
"Course on International Law", Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, August 1st-26th 2005, organized by the Inter-American Juridical Committee and the Department of International Legal Affairs of the OAS. The ICRC presented a paper on "The Contribution of the ICRC to International Humanitarian Law".
"Seminar: The International Criminal Court, the New Challenges of International and Domestic Justice", Quito, Ecuador, October 19th-20th, organized by the Andean Committee of Jurists, the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences and the ICRC.
"Meetings on International Law", Ottawa, Canada, October 22nd-26th, 2005, organized by the OAS and the Law school of the Ottawa University. The ICRC participated in a panel on the national implementation of international humanitarian law.
"First Course on International Humanitarian Law for the Legal Advisors to the Armed Forces", Boca Chica, Dominican Republic, November 14th-22nd, 2005, organized by the Military Institute of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights and the ICRC.
"Round Table: International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, Systems of Protection for the Individual", La Paz, Bolivia, November 17th, 2005, organized by the National Body for the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law, with the support of the ICRC.
Forum "The Right to Know", November 22nd-23rd, 2005, Guatemala City, organized by the ICRC.
"Meeting of National Bodies of International Humanitarian Law from Central America, Panama and the Dominican Republic", Managua, November 22nd-23rd, 2005, organized by the Government of Nicaragua with the support of the ICRC.
"Meeting on Customary International Humanitarian Law", Mexico City, November 28th, 2005, organized by the Secretariat for Foreign Affairs and the ICRC.
35
CONCLUSION
In 2005, the American States achieved significant progress as regards the implementation of international humanitarian law. Indeed, as mentioned above, there were 20 new ratifications of treaties addressing different subjects, such as the involvement of children in armed conflict, the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict, and the regulation of the use of certain weapons. As to the national implementation measures deriving from the treaties, it should be pointed out that the American States have been particularly active in this sphere. For example, as regards emblem protection, one State enacted a new law, and six more States are working on the issue. 14 States in the region have also undertaken significant activities to implement criminal law reforms aimed at incorporating war crimes into their national legislation. Several States adopted specific measures in the area of cultural property protection in the event of armed conflict, ranging from the drafting of specific legislation on the subject to cultural property identification. As regards the dissemination of international humanitarian law, significant efforts were made to promote its principles among the different target publics, such as the armed forces, the police, security forces and universities. It should also be mentioned that much of the progress made would not have been possible without the active participation of the national committees on the implementation of international humanitarian law. Furthermore, the Organization of American States has continued to foster several fora and instruments allowing the promotion of international humanitarian law. In this respect, the work of several of its bodies reflects the increasing interest of the Organization and its member States in achieving the full implementation of this branch. Lastly, the ICRC again underlines its willingness to make itself available to the American States in order to continue upholding this process.
36