Unlawful confinement of civilians

Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 20.02.2001 DELALIĆ et al. (Čelebići)
(IT-96-21-A)

320.    The offence of unlawful confinement of a civilian, a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions which is recognised under Article 2(g) of the Statute of the Tribunal, is not further defined in the Statute.  As found by the Trial Chamber, however, clear guidance can be found in the provisions of Geneva Convention IV.  The Trial Chamber found that the confinement of civilians during armed conflict may be permissible in limited cases, but will be unlawful if the detaining party does not comply with the provisions of Article 42 of Geneva Convention IV, which states:

The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary.

If any person, acting through the representatives of the Protecting Power, voluntarily demands internment, and if his situation renders this step necessary, he shall be interned by the Power in whose hands he may be.

Thus the involuntary confinement of a civilian where the security of the Detaining Power does not make this absolutely necessary will be unlawful.  Further, an initially lawful internment clearly becomes unlawful if the detaining party does not respect the basic procedural rights of the detained persons and does not establish an appropriate court or administrative board as prescribed in Article 43 of Geneva Convention IV.[1]  That article provides:

Any protected person who has been interned or placed in assigned residence shall be entitled to have such action reconsidered as soon as possible by an appropriate court or administrative board designated by the Detaining Power for that purpose.  If the internment or placing in assigned residence is maintained, the court or administrative board shall periodically, and at least twice yearly, give consideration to his or her case, with a view to the favourable amendment of the initial decision, if circumstances permit. 

Unless the protected persons concerned object, the Detaining Power shall, as rapidly as possible, give the Protecting Power the names of any protected persons who have been interned or subjected to assigned residence, or have been released from internment or assigned residence.  The decisions of the courts or boards mentioned in the first paragraph of the present Article shall also, subject to the same conditions, be notified as rapidly as possible to the Protecting Power.

321.    In its consideration of the law relating to the offence of unlawful confinement, the Trial Chamber also referred to Article 5 of Geneva Convention IV, which imposes certain restrictions on the protections which may be enjoyed by certain individuals under the Convention.[2]  It provides, in relevant part:

Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

[…]

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention.  They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.[3]

This provision reinforces the principle behind Article 42, that restrictions on the rights of civilian protected persons, such as deprivation of their liberty by confinement, are permissible only where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the security of the State is at risk. 

322.    The Appeals Chamber agrees with the Trial Chamber that the exceptional measure of confinement of a civilian will be lawful only in the conditions prescribed by Article 42, and where the provisions of Article 43 are complied with.[4]  Thus the detention or confinement of civilians will be unlawful in the following two circumstances:

(i)       when a civilian or civilians have been detained in contravention of Article 42 of Geneva Convention IV, ie they are detained without reasonable grounds to believe that the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary; and

(ii)       where the procedural safeguards required by Article 43 of Geneva Convention IV are not complied with in respect of detained civilians, even where their initial detention may have been justified.

See also paragraphs 327, 329.

[1]    [Čelebići] Trial Judgement, para 583.

[2]    [Čelebići] Trial Judgement, paras 566-567.

[3]    Emphasis added.

[4]    This does not preclude the existence of other circumstances which may render confinement of a civilian unlawful, but that question does not now arise for determination by the Appeals Chamber.

Download full document
ICTY Statute Article 2(g) Other instruments Geneva Convention IV: Articles 5; 42; 43.
Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 20.02.2001 DELALIĆ et al. (Čelebići)
(IT-96-21-A)

378. [T]he Appeals Chamber considers that a person in the position of Mucić [a prison camp commander] commits the offence of unlawful confinement of civilians where he has the authority to release civilian detainees and fails to exercise that power, where

(i)          he has no reasonable grounds to believe that the detainees do not pose a real risk to the security of the state;[1] or

(ii)         he knows that they have not been afforded the requisite procedural guarantees (or is reckless as to whether those guarantees have been afforded or not).[2]

379. Where a person who has authority to release detainees knows that persons in continued detention have a right to review of their detention[3] and that they have not been afforded that right, he has a duty to release them.  Therefore, failure by a person with such authority to exercise the power to release detainees, whom he knows have not been afforded the procedural rights to which they are entitled, commits the offence of unlawful confinement of civilians, even if he is not responsible himself for the failure to have their procedural rights respected.

[1]    This relates to the first “category” of the offence.

[2]    This relates to the second “category”.

[3]    It is unnecessary that he is aware of the legal source of this right.

Download full document
ICTY Statute Article 2(g) Other instruments Geneva Convention IV: Articles 5; 42; 43.
Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 17.12.2004 KORDIĆ & ČERKEZ
(IT-95-14/2-A)

73. Thus the detention or confinement of civilians will be unlawful in the following two circumstances:

(i) when a civilian or civilians have been detained in contravention of Article 42 of Geneva Convention IV, i.e., they are detained without reasonable grounds to believe that the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary ; and

(ii) where the procedural safeguards required by Article 43 of Geneva Convention IV are not complied with in respect of detained civilians, even where their initial detention may have been justified.[1]

 

[1] Čelebići Appeal Judgement, para. 322.

Download full document
ICTY Statute Article 2(g)