evdenicolas/REPORT IN PUBINT 020 | 1

What should be done to implement the law?

Under Article 1 common to the Conventions and Protocol I, States undertake not only to respect
(this is the principle "pacta sunt servanda")
1
, but also to ensure respect for International
Humanitarian Law (IHL). The International Court of Justice has recognized this principle to
belong to customary international law and to apply also to the law of non-international armed
conflicts. Under this principle, not only the State directly affected by a violation is concerned
and may take measures to stop it, but all other States too not only may, but must take measures.
The obligations under IHL are therefore certainly obligations erga omnes.
2


To grant a minimum of humanity to victims of armed conflicts is a common responsibility of all
States and of all human beings.

Measures must be taken to ensure respect for international humanitarian law.

States have an obligation to teach its rules to their armed forces and the
general public.

The Philippines is party to the four Geneva Conventions for the protection of war victims
(of 12 August 1949), to Additional Protocol II applicable in non-international armed
conflicts (of 8 June 1977), to various human rights instruments including the
International Covenant on civil and political rights and the International Covenant on
economic, social and cultural rights (both of 16 December 1966) and to other major
conventions.

The Philippine governments formal commitment to the principles of human rights and
international humanitarian law has been translated into municipal law, the foremost
example of which is the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which has often been referred to
as a human rights constitution. A number of proclamations, memoranda, orders,
circulars, and other executive statements reflecting this commitment were likewise
promulgated under the presidency of President Corazon C. Aquino, at the height of the
insurgency in the late 1980s.

In response to accusations of military abuse, President Aquino issued Memorandum
Order No. 393 directing the AFP and the Philippine National Police (PNP) to reaffirm
their adherence to the principles of humanitarian law and human rights in the conduct
of security /police operations.



1
An expression signifying that the agreements and stipulations of the parties to a contract must be observed.
2
Erga omnes is a Latin phrase which literally means "towards all" or "towards everyone". In legal terminology, erga omnes rights
or obligations are owed toward all.
evdenicolas/REPORT IN PUBINT 020 | 2

Case No. 103, Nigeria, Operational Code of Conduct.

Major-General Yakubu Gowon, Head of the Federal Military Government, Commander-
in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria:

DIRECTIVE TO ALL OFFICERS AND MEN OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE FEDERAL
REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA ON CONDUCT OF MILITARY OPERATIONS

demand from all officers and men the two most important
qualities of a fighting soldier- loyalty and discipline.

Nigerian Armed Forces, especially the Army, have established a very high
international reputation for high discipline and fighting efficiency
since their establishment until the events of 15th January, 1966.

demand the highest sense of discipline and patriotism amongst all
ranks of the Armed Forces. Success in battle depends to a large
extent on this - discipline and loyalty of the officers and men and
their sense of patriotism.

must all bear in mind at all times that other nations in Africa and the rest of the
world are looking at us to see how well we can perform this task which the
nation demands of us

bound to observe the rules of the Geneva Convention in whatever action you will
be taking against the rebels


They must prevent violations or punish them if these nevertheless occur.

In particular, they must enact laws to punish the most serious violations of the Geneva
Conventions and Additional Protocols, which are regarded as war crimes.
The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 (GC I-IV), their Additional Protocol I of 1977 (AP I)
and other treaties set forth the States Parties' explicit obligations regarding penal
repression of serious violations of the rules they contain. The nature and extent of these
obligations differ from one treaty to another, especially regarding the jurisdiction to
prosecute or try offenders and the repression's material and personal field of application.


Case No. 127, ECHR, Cyprus v. Turkey

In a Grand Chamber judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 10 May 2001 in
the case of Cyprus v. Turkey (application no. 25781/94), the European Court of
Human Rights held, by sixteen votes to one, that the matters complained of by
evdenicolas/REPORT IN PUBINT 020 | 3

Cyprus in its application entailed Turkeys responsibility under the European
Convention on Human Rights. The Court held that there had been the following
violations of the following provisions of the Convention.

a continuing violation of Article 2 (right to life)
a continuing violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security)
a continuing violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or
degrading treatment)
a continuing violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or
degrading treatment)
a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of
property)
a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)
a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion)
a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)
a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education)
a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial)



The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977
The States party to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols must
prevent and halt acts contravening these instruments no matter whether they
are committed in an international or non-international armed conflict.
The States Parties have further obligations relating to certain flagrant violations
of IHL, the "grave breaches". These are precise acts listed in the Geneva
Conventions and Additional Protocol I. They include
o willful killing,
o torture and inhuman treatment,
o willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and
o certain violations of the basic rules for the conduct of hostilities (GC I, Art. 50; GC
II, Art. 51; GC III, Art. 130; GC IV, Art. 47; AP I, Art. 11 and 85).
"grave breaches" are regarded as war crimes (AP I, Art. 85, para. 5).



Case No. 205, Switzerland, The Niyonteze Case.

The conviction in Niyonteze v. Public Prosecutor for war crimes committed in an
internal armed conflict is the first by a municipal court exercising universal
jurisdiction under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols II. It is
also the first conviction by such court with respect to the genocide against the
Tutsi and the massacres of moderate Huru in Rwanda during the armed conflict
between government forces (Forces Armees Rwandaises, or FAR) and the rebel
army of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) from April to July 1994. After the
evdenicolas/REPORT IN PUBINT 020 | 4

defeat of the FAR, Fulgence Niyonteze (the former mayor of Mushubati
commune in Gitarama prefecture) and his family fled to Switzerland. Fellow
countrymen reported him to the Swiss authorities. Rwanda reportedly
requested the extradition of the defendant, but Switzerland declined the request.
Nevertheless, the Rwandan government lent its full support to the Swiss
proceedings, which included what appears to be the first site visit by a municipal
court exercising universal jurisdiction.

The Niyonteze case demonstrates that once judicial authorities have gained
expertise, are willing to devote the necessary resources, and can count on the
assistance of the territorial state, perpetrators of crimes under international law
can be tried fairly and speedily in a foreign state.


The States must also pass laws protecting the red cross and red crescent
emblems.

o The protection of the emblems under the Geneva Conventions and the
Additional Protocols
The provisions of the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols establish
that the red cross and red crescent are symbols protected by international law.
These provisions define the individuals and services entitled to use the emblems and
the purposes for which they may be employed. Their use is regulated at all times,
during periods of peace as well as during times of armed conflict. Any unauthorised
use of the emblems is prohibited.

o The necessity of protecting the emblems

The red cross and red crescent are the symbols recognised and protected by
international humanitarian law. The adoption of domestic measures to ensure their
respect is a fundamental step in maintaining the impartiality associated with the
providing of humanitarian assistance. Consequently, the care and protection of
those receiving aid is enhanced. The failure of a State to take the appropriate
measures can lead to the misuse of the emblems and lessen the respect and
confidence which they enjoy. In addition, the failure to suppress abuse during times
of peace will contribute to abuse during armed conflict. This will erode the
protective value of the emblems, endanger the lives of those legitimately entitled to
employ them, and interfere with the care and protection of civilians and combatants
alike.

o Domestic measures to regulate emblem usage and prevent abuse

The responsibility for authorising the use of the red cross or red crescent emblems
rests with the State, which must regulate their use consistent with the terms of the
evdenicolas/REPORT IN PUBINT 020 | 5

Conventions and Protocols. In order to effectively control the utilisation of the
emblems, a State must adopt internal measures establishing the following:

the identification and definition of the emblem(s) recognised and protected;

the national authority with the competence to regulate the use of the emblems;

those entities with permission to employ the emblems;

the uses for which permission is authorised.

In addition, a State must enact national legislation prohibiting and punishing the
unauthorised use of the emblems at all times. This legislation must apply to all forms
of personal and commercial use and prohibit imitations or designs capable of being
mistaken for the red cross or red crescent.
The prevention and repression of emblem abuse is not accomplished solely by the
adoption of penal or regulatory measures. A State should also undertake to inform
the public, business, and the medical community on the proper utilisation of the
emblems.


Johnson & Johnson v. American Red Cross

On August 9, 2007, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) filed suit against the American Red
Cross alleging trademark infringement. The suit seeks to halt the placement of
the Red Cross emblem on all first aid, safety and disaster preparedness products
not specifically licensed by Johnson & Johnson. The suit also asks for the
destruction of all currently existing non-J&J Red Cross emblem-bearing products
of this type, and demands the American Red Cross pay punitive damages and
J&J's legal fees.

The federal court rejected Johnson & Johnson's position and ruled for the
American Red Cross, holding that federal law authorizes the American Red Cross
to use the Red Cross emblem in the sale of mission-related items like first aid and
disaster preparedness kits and to license other firms to use its name and emblem
to sell such products. The court noted in particular that the American Red Cross
had been doing so for over a century, and that, ironically, Johnson & Johnson had
once itself sought to be a licensee of the American Red Cross. After the court
rejected the substance of Johnson & Johnson's complaint, the parties ultimately
settled their differences, and the American Red Cross remains free to use its
emblem in the sale of life-saving, disaster preparedness, and other mission-
related products.