Notes

Project: Synopsis Submission followed by Feedback (Individual Projects with topics of one’s choice)

Deadline for Synopsis: 1st Week of March

Cyrus Cylinder

The Cyrus Cylinder is a document issued by Cyrus the Great, consisting of a cylinder of clay inscribed
in Akkadian cuneiform script. The cylinder was created in 539 BCE, surely by order of Cyrus the
Great, when he took Babylon from Nabonidus, ending the Neo-Babylonian empire. This document is
considered propaganda, praising the Achaemenid ruler Cyrus and treating Nabonidus like an impious
and bad king.

The text can be divided into two parts:

Lines one to 18 tell a story of Cyrus' deeds in the third person: the document tells of Nabonidus, the
last Babylonian king, who is said to have forbidden the cult of Marduk, among others, and to have
oppressed his subjects. Consequently, the subjects made complaints to the gods, and Marduk found
Cyrus in order to make him the world's ruler. All the inhabitants of his new empire were very happy
to see him as their new king.

In the second part, Cyrus speaks in the first person. He begins with his titles and continues saying
that he took care of Marduk's cult at Babylon, and that he had “allowed them to find rest from their
exhaustion, their servitude”. He also tells that lots of kings bring him levies, and that he restored the
cults in all the former kingdoms which are now part of his, and that he released the former deported
persons.

Natural School of Law

This was associated with Plato and other Greek philosophers. This School of law argued that humans
had certain inherent rights. These rights were vested in human beings by virtue of being life forms.
This is different from the positivist school of law because the natural school of law argues about how
law ought to be while positivists describe law as it is.

The US Declaration of Independence stated “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed”.

Large number of philosophers eventually came to an agreement that certain rights applied across
societies and nations.

The UN Declaration of Human Rights

Links with religions

Human rights have been acknowledged in some form in various religions, not directly but atleast
indirectly. Buddhism, Confuscianism, Islam etc. recognize equality, respect for all and other notions
which now form the core of human rights.

Various philosophers have propounded ideas that have led to the idea of development of law.

There are three aspects which need to be considered:

a. Ethical: These trace their origin to religious ideas and different schools of thoughts.
b. Legal
c. Advocacy Discourse:

There is an implicit presumption that human rights are ethical concerns or demands, which should
survive open and informed scrutiny. Natural School of Law had its basis in divine law but then shifted
to the state of nature. Aristotle, Plato and other Greek scholars dealt with ideas associated with the
natural school of law which was used by philosophers such as John Locke to argue for the adherence
of certain basic rights, even by the state.

Philosophers such as Bentham questioned the basis of laws on natural law.

In his work the Rights of Men, Thomas Paine developed this idea further.

There are constant aggressions against peace, which has to be recognized. In 1863, the war between
Austria and UK was witnessed by Henry Dunant and led him to establish the Red Cross Society. The
Laws of Armed Conflict were also important in this context.

TOPIC 1- Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights [Jerome J. Shestack] -

Reading
Some philosophers recognize human rights as moral and universal. These terms are ambiguous and
it begets the question about who recognizes these rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
deals with them to a certain extent. Rights as a term can describe a variety of legal relationships
which can take the form of entanglement, obligation so on and so forth.

In the domestic context, constitutional courts have been responsible for upholding Fundamental
Rights. When we say a right is “important” enough to be a human right, one may be speaking of one
or more of the following qualities: (1) intrinsic value; (2) instrumental value; (3) value to a scheme of
rights; (4) importance as structural support for the system of the good life

The article argues that a starting point in understanding the moral foundations of human rights law
is to examine the sources of human rights claims. The author deals with the following sources:

A. Religion
The term “human rights” as such is not found in traditional religions. Nonetheless, theology presents
the basis for a human rights theory stemming from a law higher than that of the state and whose
source is the Supreme Being.
In a religious context every human being is considered sacred. Accepting a universal common father
gives rise to a common humanity, and from this flows a universality of certain rights. Because rights
stem from a divine source, they are inalienable by mortal authority. This concept is found out not
only in Judeo-Christian tradition, but also in Islam and other religions with a deistic base.

However, while equality of all human beings in the eyes of God would seem a necessary
development from the common creation by God, but freedom to live as one prefers is not. Religions
generally impose severe limitation on individual freedom. So, serious incompatibilities exist between
various religious practices and the scope of human rights structures by the United Nations. Still, the
concept of human beings created in the image of God certainly endows men and women with a
worth and dignity from which the components of a comprehensive human rights system can flow
logically.

B. Natural Law: The Autonomous Individual

Medieval Christian philosophers, such as Thomas Aquinas, put great stress on natural law as
conferring certain immutable rights upon individuals as part of the law of God. However, critical
limitations in the medieval concepts that recognized slavery and serfdom excluded central ideas of
freedom and equality.

Modern secular theories of natural law arose, particularly enunciated by Grotius, which detached
natural law from religion, laying the groundwork for the secular, rationalistic version of modern
natural law. According to Grotius, a natural characteristic of human beings is the social impulse to
live peacefully and in harmony with others. Whatever conformed to the nature of men and women
as rational, social beings was right and just, whatever opposed it by natural law as a “dictate of right
reason”. Natural law theory led to natural rights theory – the theory most closely associated with
modern human rights. The chief exponent of this theory was John Locke. Locke imagined the
existence of human beings in a state of nature. In that state men and women were in a state of
freedom, able to determine their actions, and also in a state of equality in the sense that no one was
subject to the will or authority of another.

However, to end the hazards and inconveniences of the state of nature, men and women entered
into a social contract by which they mutually agreed to form a community and set up body politic. In
setting up political authority, individuals retained the natural rights of life, liberty, and property.
Government was obliged to protect the natural rights of its subjects, and if government neglected
this obligation, it forfeited its validity and office. Natural rights theory makes an important
contribution to human rights. It affords an appeal from the realities of naked power to a higher
authority that is asserted for the protection of human rights.

C. Positivism: The Authority of the State

John Stuart Mill claimed that rights are found utility. However, the most serious attack on natural
law came from a doctrine called legal positivism. Classical positivist philosophers deny an a priori
source of rights and assume that all authority stems from what the state and officials have
prescribed. Under positivist theory, the source of human rights is found only in the enactments of a
system of law with sanctions attached to it. Therefore, it negates the moral philosophic basis of
human rights. This has led to criticism of positivism, especially in light of the anti-semitic edicts of the
Nazis.

However, the positivist contribution was still significant. If the state’s processes can be brought to
bear in the protection of human rights, it becomes easier to focus upon the specific implementation
that is necessary for the protection of particular rights. Positivist thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham
and John Austin were often in the vanguard of those who sought to bring about reform in the law.
Always under human control, a positivist system also offers flexibility to meet changing needs.

The methodology of the positivist jurists in the technical building of legal conceptions is also
pragmatically useful in developing a system of rights in international law.

D. Marxism: Man as a Specie Being

Marxist theory, like natural law, is also concerned with the nature of human beings. However, in
Marxism, the view of men and women is not one of autonomous individuals with rights developed
from either a divine or inherent nature, but of men and women as "specie being”.

Marx regarded the law of nature approach to human rights as idealistic and ahistorical. He saw
nothing natural or inalienable about human rights. In a society in which capitalists monopolize the
means of production, Marx regarded the notion of individual rights as a bourgeois illusion.

Marxism sees a person's essence as the potential to use one's abilities to the fullest and to satisfy
one's needs. An actualization of potential is contingent on the return of men and women to
themselves as social beings, which occurs in a communist society devoid of class conflict. However,
until that stage is reached, the state is a social collectivity and is the vehicle for the transformation of
society. Such a conceptualization of the nature of society precludes the existence of individual rights
rooted in the state of nature that are prior to the state. The only rights are those granted by the
state, and their exercise is contingent on the fulfillment of obligations to society and to the state.

The Marxist system of rights has often been referred to as "parental," with the authoritarian
political body providing the sole guidance in value choice. The creation of such”specie being" is a
type of paternalism that not only ignores transcendental reason, but negates individuality. In
practice, pursuit of the prior claims of society as reflected in the interests of the Communist state
has resulted in systematic suppression of individual civil and political rights. On an international
level, Marxist theory proved incompatible with a functioning universal system of human rights.

E. The Sociological Approach : Process and Interests

Sociological jurisprudence tends to move away from both a priori theories and analytical types of
jurisprudence. This approach, insofar as it relates to human rights, sometimes directs attention to
the questions of institutional development, sometimes focuses on specific problems of public policy
that have a bearing on human rights, and sometimes aims at classifying behavioral dimensions of
law and society. In a human rights context, the approach is useful because it identifies the empirical
components of a human rights system in the context of the social process.

A primary contribution of the sociological school is its emphasis on obtaining a just equilibrium of
interests among prevailing moral sentiments and the social and economic conditions of time and
place. Roscoe Pound argued that while the history of law in 19 th century was a record of an
increasing recognition of individual rights in the 20 th century, however, this history should be written
in terms of a continually wider recognition of human wants, human demands, and social interests.
Pound catalogued the interests as individual, public, and social. He did not try to give value
preferences to these interests. His guiding principle was one of "social engineering," that is, the
ordering of human relations through politically organized society so as to secure all interests insofar
as possible with the least sacrifice of the totality of interests. The approach of Pound and his progeny
usefully enlarges one's understanding of the scope of human rights and their correlation with
demands. His identification of the interests involved takes into account the realities of the social
process; he shows one how to focus on rights in terms of what concerns people and what they
want. He makes one "result- minded, cause-minded and process-minded

F. Rights based on the value of Utility

Utilitarianism is a maximizing and collectivizing principle that requires governments to maximize the
total net sum of the happiness of all their subjects. This principle is in contrast to natural rights
theory, which is a distributive and individualizing principle that assigns priority to specific basic
interests of each individual subject.

Jeremy Bentham, who expounded classical utilitarianism, believed that every human decision was
motivated by some calculation of pleasure and pain. He thought that every political decision should
be made on the same calculation, that is, to maximize the net produce of pleasure over pain.
Hence, both governments and the limits of governments were to be judged not by reference to
abstract individual rights, but in terms of what tends to promote the greatest happiness of the
greatest number. Because all count equally at the primary level, anyone may have to accept
sacrifices if the benefits they yield to others are large enough to outweigh such sacrifices.

The essential criticism of utilitarianism is that it fails to recognize individual autonomy ; it fails to
take rights seriously. Utilitarianism, however refined, retains the central principle of maximizing the
aggregate desires or general welfare as the ultimate criterion of value. While utilitarianism treats
persons as equals, it does so only in the sense including them in the mathematical equation, but
not in the sense attributing worth to each individual. Under the utilitarian equation, individual's
desires or welfare may be sacrificed as long as aggregate satisfaction or welfare is increased.
Utilitarianism thus fails to treat persons as equals, in that it literally dissolves moral personality into
utilitarian aggregates. Moreover, the mere increase in aggregate happiness or welfare, if abstracted
from questions of distribution and worth of the individual, not a real value or true moral
TOPIC 2- Modern Human Rights Theories
1. Rights Based on Natural Rights: Core Rights
The aftermath of World War II brought about a revival of natural rights theory. It was due in part of
the revulsion against Nazism and the horrors that could emanate from a positivist system in which
the individual counted for nothing.

The new rights philosophers adopted what may be called a qualified a natural law approach in that
they try to identify the values that have an eternal and universal aspect. They agree that only a
positive legal system that meets those values can function as an effective legal system. The common
theme emerging from a huge family of theories is minimum absolute or core postulate of any just
and universal system of rights must include some recognition of the value of individual freedom or
autonomy.

Underlying such foundational or core rights theory is the omnipresence of Immanuel Kant's
compelling ethic. Kant's ethic maintains that persons typically have different desires and ends, so
any principle derived from them can only be contingent. However, the moral law needs a
categorical foundation, not a contingent one. The basis for moral law must be prior to all purposes
and ends. The basis is the individual as a transcendental subject capable of an autonomous will.
Rights then flow from the autonomy of the individual in choosing his or her ends, consistent with a
similar freedom for all.

In variant forms, modern human rights core theories seem to be settling for concepts of natural
necessity. By necessity one means prescribing a minimum definition of what it means to be human
in any morally tolerable form of society. Put another way, some modes of treatment of human
beings are so fundamental to the existence of anything that one would be willing to call a society
that it makes better sense to treat an acceptance of them as constitutive of man or woman as a
social being, rather than as an artificial convention.

The renaissance of qualified or modified natural rights or core theories has seminally influenced
conventional international human rights norms. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights reflects
that influence, as seen in the Declaration's opening statement: "Whereas recognition of the inherent
dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation
of freedom, justice and peace in the world." In a similar vein, Article 1 provides: "All human beings
are born free and equal in dignity. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act
toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

2. Rights Based on Justice

The monumental thesis of modern philosophy is John Rawls' A Theory of Justice. "Justice is the first
virtue of social institutions,”

Human rights, of course, are an end of justice; hence, the role of justice is crucial to understanding
human rights. No theory of human rights for a domestic or international order in modern society can
be advanced today without considering Rawls' thesis. Principles of justice, according to Rawls,
provide a way of assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of society. These principles
define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation.

To set the stage for ascertaining the principles of justice, Rawls imagines a group of men and
women who have come together to form a social contract. Rawls conceives the contractors in an
original position. The original position is one of equality of the contractor with respect to power and
freedom. It is taken for granted that all know the general principles of human psychology, sociology,
economics, social organization, and the theory of human institutions. However, the contractors are
under a "veil of ignorance" as to the particular circumstances of their own society or of their
individual race, sex, social position, wealth, talents, opinions, aspirations, and taste.

In that hypothetical original position, all of the contractors would consider only their own self-
interest, which is to acquire a sufficiency of primary human goods, namely fundamental liberties,
rights, and opportunities of income and wealth as social bases of self-esteem. They would choose
principles that would be good for all of the members, not simply to the advantage of some.

Rawls claims that the contractors, who are in the original position of choosing their own status
and prospects, will choose two principles of justice. Rawls' First Principle is that "each person is to
have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a
similar system of liberty for all.” Liberty is the first priority can be restricted only for the sake of
liberty.

The First Principle focuses on the basic liberties. Rawls does not enumerate them precisely, but
indicates, roughly speaking, that they include political liberty, freedom of speech and assembly,
liberty of conscience and thought, freedom of the person (along with the right to hold personal
property), and freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure. However, in the real world, will clashes
not occur between liberty and other interests, such as public order and security, or efficient
measures to ensure public health and safety? To solve this conflict, Rawls suggests a Principle of
Reconciliation under which basic liberties may be restricted only when methods of reasoning
acceptable to all make it clear that unrestricted liberties will lead to consequences generally
agreed to be harmful for all. This Principle of Reconciliation is that of the common interest. A basic
liberty may be limited only in cases where there would be an advantage to the total system of basic
liberty.

Rawls' Second Principle deals with distributive justice. It holds that: "Social and economic
inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least
advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and (b) attached to offices and positions open
to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.”

Rawls' Second Principle is a strongly egalitarian concept which holds that unless there is a
distribution that makes both groups better off, an equal distribution is preferred. With respect to
Rawls' Second Principle, the problems are more complex. Here, Rawls holds that a condition of
distributive justice is fair equality of opportunity. Opportunity, stated as a principle of non-
discrimination, is easy to put into a legal precept, and international human rights covenants and
many domestic constitutions do prohibit discrimination by virtue of sex, race, religion, or national
origin. However, empirical knowledge tells one that equality of opportunity is not enough because
society creates the conditions of the pursuit, thereby affecting the outcome.
For example, a person who grows up under conditions of discrimination and deprivation has less
opportunity to get into a college than someone from the mainstream of society with a good
elementary and secondary education. Hence, to provide equality of opportunity one must
compensate for unequal starting points. However, the opportunities of others also should be
protected. Rawls' Difference Principle addresses this issue. However, if one acknowledges the
claims for more equitable distribution of economic benefits, one must still decide at what point on
the spectrum one draws the line and says that the claims for equality do not outweigh the
competing values of liberty or the utilitarian aggregate benefits that will be decreased by meeting
the claims.

3. Rights Based on Reaction to Injustice

Cahn asserts that although there may be universal a priori truths concerning justice from which one
may deduce rights or norms, it is better to approach justice from its negative rather than its
affirmative side. In other words, it is much easier to identify injustice from experience and
observation than it is to identify justice.

This concept of the need to right wrong has the capacity to produce action. The practical starting
point may well be the strongly felt response to words that move one with emotional force and
practical urgency to press for the satisfaction or repair of some need, deprivation, threat, or
insecurity.

However, with the more sophisticated kinds of entitlements arising from considerations of social
justice, there is less agreement on what constitutes injustice, and Cahn's insight offers less help.

4. Rights based on Dignity

Some religious philosophers, holding dignity to be the inherent quality of the sacredness of human
beings, believe that an entire rights system can flow from that concept. A secular exposition of that
theory is best presented by Professors McDougal, Lasswell, and Chen. McDougal, Lasswell, and
Chen proceed on the premise that demands for human rights are demands for wide sharing in all the
values upon which human rights depend and for effective participation in all community value
processes. The interdependent values, which can all fall under the rubric of human dignity, are the
demands relating to (1) respect, (2) power, (3) en- lightenment, (4) well-being, (5) health, (6) skill,
(7) affection, and (8) rectitude.

5. Rights based on equality of Respect and Concern

Ronald Dworkin proceeds from the postulate of political morality, i.e., that government must treat
all their citizens with equal concern and respect. No basis for any valid discourse on rights and
claims exists in the absence of such a premise

Dworkin next endorses the egalitarian character of the utilitarian principle that "everybody can
count for one, nobody for more than one." Under this principle he believes that the state may
exercise wide interventionist functions in order to advance social welfare. Dworkin believes that a
right to liberty in general is too vague to be meaningful. However, certain specific liberties such as
freedom of speech, freedom of worship, rights of association, and of personal and sexual
relations, do require special protection against governmental interference.

6. Theory Based on Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativism, as a concept to justify departure from human rights standards in international
law on cultural grounds, has scant claim to moral validity. Still, because cultural relativism has been
given the trappings of philosophic credentials even in UN circles, it must be addressed. Cultural
relativism is essentially an anthropological and sociological concept loosely grounded in the theory
of moral relativism. The notion is that cultures manifest so wide and diverse a range of
preferences, morality, motivations, and evaluations that no human rights principles can be said to
be self-evident and recognized in all times and all places.

Cultural relativists, in their most aggressive conceptual stance, argue that no human rights are
absolutes, that the principles that one may use for judging behavior are relative to the society in
which one is raised, that there is infinite cultural variability, and that all cultures are morally equal
or valid. Put into a philosophical calculus, the relativist says that "truth is just for a time or place"
identified by the standards of one's cultural peers. Relativism thus shifts the touchstones by which to
measure the worth of human rights practice.
TOPIC 3- International Humanitarian Law
International humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights law are complementary. They both seek to
protect human dignity, though they do so in different circumstances and in different ways. Human
rights law applies at all times and in all circumstances, and it concerns all persons subject to the
jurisdiction of a State. Its purpose is to protect individuals from arbitrary behavior by the State.
Human rights law, therefore, continues to apply in times of armed conflict. However, human rights
treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention
and the American Convention on Human Rights authorize derogations under stringent conditions
from some rights in time of “public emergency which threatens the life of the nation,” of which
armed conflict is certainly an example.

In times of armed conflict, a special system of law, IHL, comes into effect. It is a set of rules especially
adapted to armed conflict that serves to protect the victims of war (civilians, wounded and sick,
prisoners, displaced, etc.) and to regulate the conduct of hostilities. As it applies only in exceptional
circumstances, no derogations are allowed. Many provisions are made for international armed
conflicts, but far fewer apply to non-international armed conflicts. The principal purpose of IHL is to
protect the life, health and human dignity of civilians and combatants no longer involved in
hostilities (captured, wounded or sick combatants), and to limit the rights of parties in conflict to use
methods of warfare of their choice

Principal Instruments of IHL:

 1868: Declaration of St. Petersburg

 1899 and 1907 The Hague Conventions
 1949 The Geneva Conventions
 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
 1977 Additional Protocols I & II to the Geneva Conventions
 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
 1993 Convention on Chemical Weapons
 1995 Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons
 1997 Convention on Anti-personnel Mines
 1998 Statute of the International Criminal Court
 2000 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of
children in armed conflict
 2005 Additional Protocol III to the Geneva Conventions
 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions

Human Rights

The first traces of human rights law can be found in the eighteenth century. Indeed, the French
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 and the American Bill of Rights adopted
in 1791 together mark the beginning of human rights law. Subsequently, it was under the influence
of the United Nations (U.N.) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 that the
development of human rights began in earnest. Two important covenants were signed in 1966: the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (first generation of human rights) and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (second generation of human rights).
The first covenant remains the standard.

Principal Instruments of Human Rights:

 1926 Slavery Convention Concerning Forced or Compulsory Labor (ILO)

 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (U.N.)
 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (U.N.)
 1969 American Convention on Human Rights
 1979 Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment
 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child

Nuremberg Trials

Following World War II, the victorious Allied governments established the first international
criminal tribunals to prosecute high-level political officials and military authorities for war crimes
and other wartime atrocities. The four major Allied powers—France, the Soviet Union, the United
Kingdom, and the United States—set up the International Military Tribunal (IMT) in Nuremberg,
Germany, to prosecute and punish “the major war criminals of the European Axis.” The IMT presided
over a combined trial of senior Nazi political and military leaders, as well as several Nazi
organizations. The lesser-known International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) was created
in Tokyo, Japan, pursuant to a 1946 proclamation by U.S. Army General Douglas MacArthur,
Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers in occupied Japan. The IMTFE presided over a series of
trials of senior Japanese political and military leaders pursuant to its authority “to try and punish Far
Eastern war criminals.”

In August 1945, the four major Allied powers therefore signed the 1945 London Agreement, which
established the IMT.

The Charter of the International Military Tribunal (or Nuremberg Charter) was annexed to the 1945
London Agreement and outlined the tribunal’s constitution, functions, and jurisdiction. The
Nuremberg tribunal consisted of one judge from each of the Allied powers, which each also supplied
a prosecution team.

The Nuremberg Charter also provided that the IMT had the authority to try and punish persons
who “committed any of the following crimes:”-----

a) Crimes Against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of

aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or
 participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the
foregoing;
b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include,
but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other
purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of
prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private
property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by
military necessity;
c) Crimes Against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and
other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,
or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with
any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law
of the country where perpetrated.

DURATION OF NUREMBERG TRIALS- The Nuremberg Trial lasted from November 1945 to October
1946. The tribunal found nineteen individual defendants guilty and sentenced them to
punishments that ranged from death by hanging to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Three defendants
were found not guilty, one committed suicide prior to trial, and one did not stand trial due to
physical or mental illness.

Benefits of Nuremberg Trials

The Nuremberg trials established that all of humanity would be guarded by an international legal
shield and that even a Head of State would be held criminally responsible and punished for
aggression and Crimes Against Humanity. The right of humanitarian intervention to put a stop to
Crimes Against Humanity – even by a sovereign against his own citizens – gradually emerged from
the Nuremberg principles affirmed by the United Nations.

The ICC’s predecessors are primarily the Nuremberg and the Tokyo Tribunals created by the
victorious Allies after World War II. These tribunals have been accused of being unfair and merely
institutions for “victor’s justice,” but nevertheless they did lay the groundwork for modern
international criminal law. They were the first tribunals where violators of international law were
held responsible for their crimes. They also recognized individual accountability and rejected
historically used defences based on state sovereignty. These principles of international law
recognized in the Nuremberg Charter and Judgments were later affirmed in a resolution by the UN
General Assembly.
TOPIC 4- Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The UN Charter does not really explain or clarify Human Rights. This led to the development of the
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

John Peters Humphrey (Director of Division of Human Rights with UN Secretariat) is the primary
architect of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. UDHR Drafting Committee was chaired by
Eleanor Roosevelt. Other prominent members included P.C. Chang, Rene Cassin and Charles Malik.

The Declaration consists of the following:

The preamble sets out the historical and social causes that led to the necessity of drafting the
Declaration.

 Articles 1–2 establish the basic concepts of dignity, liberty, and equality.

 Articles 3–5 establish other individual rights, such as the right to life and the prohibition of
slavery and torture.

 Articles 6–11 refer to the fundamental legality of human rights with specific remedies cited
for their defence when violated.

 Articles 12–17 set forth the rights of the individual towards the community, including
freedom of movement and residence within each state, the right of property and the right to
a nationality.

 Articles 18–21 sanction the so-called "constitutional liberties" and spiritual, public, and
political freedoms, such as freedom of thought, opinion, expression, religion and conscience,
word, peaceful association of the individual, and receiving and imparting information and
ideas through any media.

 Articles 22–27 sanction an individual's economic, social and cultural rights, including
healthcare. It upholds an expansive right to an adequate standard of living, and makes
special mention of care given to those in motherhood or childhood.

 Articles 28–30 establish the general means of exercising these rights, the areas in which the
rights of the individual cannot be applied, the duty of the individual to society, and the
prohibition of the use of rights in contravention of the purposes of the United Nations
Organization.

Criticisms of UDHR
1. The criticism of UDHR is sometimes criticised as a ‘western imposition’. For instance,
western developed countries consider political and social rights to be more important
while eastern developing countries consider economic rights to be more important. The
UDHR has been subject to criticisms due to its supposed ethnocentrism and rhetoric,
reflecting strong western influences.
2. The first article of the Declaration states that ‘all human beings are born free and equal in
dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards
one another in a spirit of brotherhood’ Concepts such as ‘consciousness’, ‘dignity’, ‘reason’
have been often interpreted by European scholars as deriving from western philosophy.

3. It has been argued that the drafting of the UDHR was carried out through a process that
imposed strict boundaries of inclusion and exclusion in relation to political power. Even
though 58 UN member states were involved in the drafting of the UDHR, the two primary
actors were the 'UN Commission on Human Rights' and members of the 'UNESCO
Committee on the theoretical bases of human rights'.

4. When discussing universality we need to consider ‘cultural heterogeneity’ or differences in

cultural identity. This is linked to the idea of cultural relativism.

5. Some proponents of cultural relativism, argue that it is impossible to make a universal

claim about cultures. Cultural relativists say different countries with different cultures
should be able to determine their own measures of human rights implementation and one
should not impose one unique model of rights. A critique of the UDHR is the tension
between different particular cultural, religious and political values and the idea that these
can all be represented by a unique universal declaration. This can lead to moral paralysis
though. The idea of cultural relativism emerged in 1950s.

Cultural relativism is the assertion that human values, far from being universal, vary a great
deal according to different cultural perspectives. One of the major drawbacks of the theory
of Cultural relativism is the perception of “culture” as something unchanging and stable. In
fact, all types of Cultural relativism, be it Strong or weak, are based on stable conception of
culture, which fails to recognize the flexibility of culture for social changes and ideological
innovations. Whereas, I strongly support the idea that culture is an ongoing process of
historical development, adaptation and evolution. Opponents of this theory argue that
Cultural relativism can be dangerous for the effectiveness of international protection of
human rights, since the nature of the theory fundamentally justifies human rights abuses
linking to the customs and traditions of the society. It cannot be said that human rights
violate the sovereignty of the states.

Preamble

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of
the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have
outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy
freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest
aspiration of the common people,….

…Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental
human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women
and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
 ….The General Assembly,

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all
peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this
Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these
rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal
and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and
among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed
with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood

Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration,
without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or
other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be
prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment

or punishment.

Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal
protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in
violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile

Article 10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent
and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal
charge against him

Article 11: Presumption of Innocence

Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family,
home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the
right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13: Freedom of movement and the right to leave any country and return to his
country

Article 14: Right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries

Drawbacks

UDHR does not give you a standing or right before a domestic adjudicating body but it
gives plenty of material to rely on for argumentation.
TOPIC 5- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a multilateral treaty that commits
nations to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to life, freedom of
religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights and rights to due process and a
fair trial. It was adopted by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) on 16
December 1966 and entered into force on 23 March 1976 after its thirty-fifth ratification or
accession.

The ICCPR is considered a seminal document in the history of international law and human rights,
forming part of the International Bill of Human Rights, along with the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR). Compliance with the ICCPR is monitored by the United Nations Human Rights Committee,
which reviews regular reports of states parties on how the rights are being implemented.

Article 1: All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely
determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
development

All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources
without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation,
based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law

Article 2: Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to
all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the
present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated
shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by
persons acting in an official capacity;

(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto
determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other
competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the
possibilities of judicial remedy;

Article 3: The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of
men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present
Covenant.

Article 6: Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by
law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed
only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the
commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to
the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Article 7: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment

or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical
or scientific experimentation.

Article 8: No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall
be prohibited.

2. No one shall be held in servitude.

Article 9: Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected
to arbitrary arrest or detention.

Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take
proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the
lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.

Article 10: Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to
take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the
lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.

Article 12: 1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory,
have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which
are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public),
public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the
other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

Article 14: All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination
of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone
shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial
tribunal established by law.

Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent
until proved guilty according to law.

In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the
following minimum guarantees, in full equality: (a) To be informed promptly and in detail in
a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him;
(b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to
communicate with counsel of his own choosing;

(c) To be tried without undue delay;

(d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance
of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and
to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require,
and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for
it;

(e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance
and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against
him;

(f) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the
language used in court;

(g) Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.

Article 15: No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or
omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law,
at the time when it was committed.

Article 16: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

Article 18: Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and
freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to
manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

Article 21: The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be
placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and
which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public
safety, public order

Article 24: Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour, sex,
language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, the right to such measures of
protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the
State.

Article 26: All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination
to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination
and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any
ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or
social origin, property, birth or other status.
CCPR has two Optional Protocols, which are additional treaties that provide further rights or
processes. The first Optional Protocol allows people to complain directly to the Human
Rights Committee if they believe their rights have been violated. It can only be used when all
domestic channels have been exhausted. The first Optional Protocol has not been ratified by
India. The second Optional Protocol deals with the abolition of the death penalty. This has
been ratified by the UK but has not been ratified by India.

Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 1: A State Party to the Covenant that becomes a Party to the present Protocol
recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from
individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by that State Party
of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant.

Article 2: Subject to the provisions of article 1, individuals who claim that any of their rights
enumerated in the Covenant have been violated and who have exhausted all available
domestic remedies may submit a written communication to the Committee for
consideration

Article 3: Subject to the provisions of article 3, the Committee shall bring any
communications submitted to it under the present Protocol to the attention of the State
Party to the present Protocol alleged to be violating any provision of the Covenant

Article 5: The Committee shall consider communications received under the present
Protocol in the light of all written information made available to it by the individual and by
the State Party concerned.

The Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has
ascertained that:

a. The same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international
investigation or settlement;
b. The individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. This shall not be the rule
where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged.

The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under the
present Protocol. The Committee shall forward its views to the State Party concerned and to
the individual

Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
aiming at the abolition of the death penalty

Article 1: No one within the jurisdiction of a State Party to the present Protocol shall be
executed. Each State Party shall take all necessary measures to abolish death penalty within
its jurisdiction

Article 2: No reservation is admissible to the present Protocol, except for the reservation
made at the time of ratification or accession that provides for the application of the death
penalty in time of war pursuant to a conviction for a most serious crime of a military nature
committed during wartime.

Article 5: With respect to the States Parties to the first Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted on 16 December 1966, the competence of the
Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject
to its jurisdiction shall extend to the provisions of the present Protocol, unless the State
Party concerned has made a statement to the contrary at the moment of ratification or
accession

International Convenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights [Adopted on 16 December

1966]

All human rights, whether civil and political—or economic, social and cultural—are
interlinked. For example, individuals who cannot read or write often have a harder time in
realizing their full potentials than those who can to find work or to take part in political
activity. Malnutrition and hunger are less likely to occur where individuals can effectively
exercise their right to vote and influence Government priorities.

The UDHR, ratified in 1948, makes no distinction between these rights. A distinction later
appeared in the context of cold war tensions between the East and West. This led to the
negotiation and adoption of two separate covenants—one on civil and political rights, and
another on economic, social and cultural rights.

In recent decades since the Vienna Declaration on Human Rights in 1993, there has been a
return to the original architecture of the UDHR, reaffirming the indivisibility of all human
rights. At the same time, there has been renewed attention to the importance of economic,
social and cultural rights, particularly in the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and addressing and preventing conflicts crisis worldwide, including the COVID-
19 pandemic.

Obligations of States

States have a duty to respect, protect and fulfil economic, social and cultural rights.

Their specific obligations may be summarized as follows:

Progressive realization: States are required to progressively achieve the full realization of
these rights over a period of time. Regardless of resource availability, States have an
immediate obligation to take appropriate steps to ensure continuous and sustained
improvement in the enjoyment of these rights over time.
Core obligations that are of immediate nature:
-Minimum essential levels: States are required, with immediate effect, to ensure the
enjoyment of minimum essential levels of each right.
-Prohibition of retrogression: The duty to progressively fulfil economic, social and cultural
rights implies a prohibition of measures that would diminish the current enjoyment of rights.
For example, States must ensure that their policies and measures do not undermine access
to health care or social security benefits.

-Prohibition of discrimination: This covers laws, policies and practices which are
discriminatory in effect, no matter the intent. Respecting the principle of non-discrimination
requires specific measures to ensure the protection of the rights of marginalized populations
as a priority. Even when resources are limited, the State has a duty to adopt measures to
protect those most at risk. Such measures may include taxation and social transfers to
mitigate inequalities that arise or are exacerbated in times of crisis.

-To take steps towards the full realization of ESCRs for all.
Use of maximum available resources: States have a duty to use their maximum available
resources for the progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights. Even if a
State clearly has inadequate resources at its disposal, it should still introduce low-cost and
targeted programmes to assist those most in need so that limited resources are used
efficiently and effectively

Article 1: All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely
determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
development.

All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources
without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation,
based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law.

Article 2: Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually
and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to
the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full
realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means,
including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.

Article 3: The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of
men and women to the enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural rights set forth in the
present Covenant.

Article 6: The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which
includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely
chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.

Article 7: Everyone has the right to just conditions of work; fair wages ensuring a decent
living for himself and his family; equal pay for equal work; safe and healthy working
conditions; equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted; rest and leisure.

Article 8: Everyone has the right to form and join trade unions, the right to strike.
 Article 9: Everyone has the right to social security, including social insurance.

Article 11: The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an
adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and
housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take
appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the
essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.

Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (OP-ICESCR) (link is external)is an international treaty that allows victims of
violation of economic, social and cultural rights, to present complaints at the international
level. When people cannot access justice in the courts of their country for violations of
economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR), they can bring a complaint to the UN
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)(link is external).
However, their country must first become a party to the OP-ICESCR treaty through
ratification or accession.
The OP-ICESCR is also a powerful tool for advocacy. All States parties to the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) have the obligation to respect,
protect and fulfill ESCR. The OP-ICESCR reinforces that all rights violations must have a
remedy, foremost in their own country, but at the international level if necessary. The OP-
ICESCR gives advocates a tool to push for improvements in their own judiciary system, as
well as for laws and policies that secure and advance ESCR. The recommendations of the
Committee on ESCR in emerging cases can be utilized to help interpret human rights
obligations.
The Optional Protocol includes three procedures:

1. A complaints procedure
2. An inquiries procedure
3. An inter-State complaints procedure

1. The Complaints Procedure

 Provides an opportunity to seek remedy and compensation in individual cases when a

State violates ESCR;
 Provides the possibility to access a procedure to seek justice at the international level
when access to justice at the national level has been denied;
 Provides the CESCR with an opportunity to advance new jurisprudence (legal
interpretation about the content of State’s obligations) on ESCR;
 Provides a legal mechanism within which contributions of claimants, States, third
parties and the Committee itself can help to further define and clarify the nature and
scope of the ESCR protected under the ICESCR.
Who Can Present a Complaint?

 Individuals or groups of individuals, who allege to be victims of violations of the

ICESCR and who have not found effective remedies within their own country, can
file a complaint. In addition, third persons may file complaints on behalf of these
individuals or groups of individuals with their consent.
 Third persons may file complaints on behalf of presumed victims, without their
consent, but must justify acting on their behalf.

2. The Inquiry Procedure

When a State Party agrees to be bound by the inquiry procedure, the Committee will also be
able to initiate and conduct investigations into grave or systematic violations of ESCR. This
procedure adds to the complaints and periodic reporting procedures as it:

 Allows the Committee to respond in a timely fashion to serious violations taking

place within a State Party instead of waiting until the State’s next periodic report to
the CESCR is submitted;
 Offers a means to adequately address systematic or widespread violations of ESCR in
cases where individual complaints are not adequate to reflect the extent of the
situation;
 Addresses situations where individuals or groups are unable to submit complaints due
to practical constraints or fear of reprisals.

3. The Inter-State Complaints Procedure

The OP-ICESCR also includes a second opt-in procedure, the inter-State complaints
procedure. States that opt in to this procedure can make complaints against other States
Parties and have complaints made against them.
Article 11: A State Party to the present Protocol may at any time declare that it recognizes
the competence of the Committee provided for under the present article

If the Committee receives reliable information indicating grave or systematic violations by a

State Party of any of the economic, social and cultural rights set forth in the Covenant, the
Committee shall invite that State Party to cooperate in the examination of the information
and to this end to submit observations with regard to the information concerned.

Taking into account any observations that may have been submitted by the State Party
concerned as well as any other reliable information available to it, the Committee may
designate one or more of its members to conduct an inquiry and to report urgently to the
Committee. Where warranted and with the consent of the State Party, the inquiry may
include a visit to its territory.

Such an inquiry shall be conducted confidentially and the cooperation of the State Party shall
be sought at all stages of the proceedings.
Genocide Convention [Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide]

In the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda’s final judgment of Prosecutor v. Akayesu,
genocide was declared to be “the crime of all crimes.” Since Raphael Lemkin’s
conceptualization of the crime of genocide in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (1944), the crime
of genocide has gained primacy within international law.

The Convention on Genocide was among the first United Nations conventions addressing
humanitarian issues. It was adopted in 1948 in response to the atrocities committed during
World War II and followed G.A. Res. 180(II) of 21 December 1947 in which the UN
recognised that "genocide is an international crime, which entails the national and
international responsibility of individual persons and states." The Convention has since then
been widely accepted by the international community and ratified by the overwhelmingly
majority of States.

There is no expectation of quid pro quo when it comes to the obligations under the
Genocide Convention.

Article I: The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace
or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to
punish.

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed
with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to
prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another
group.

Article III: The following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit
genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit
genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide.

Article VI: Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III
shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was
committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to
those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.

Article VII: Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as
political crimes for the purpose of extradition.

Article VIII: Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United
Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider
appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts
enumerated in article III.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment

The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (the “Torture Convention”) was adopted by the General Assembly of the United
Nations on 10 December 1984 (resolution 39/46). The Convention entered into force on 26
June 1987 after it had been ratified by 20 States.

The Torture Convention was the result of many years’ work, initiated soon after the
adoption of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the “Torture
Declaration”) by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975 (resolution 3452 (XXX)).

In fact, the Torture Declaration was intended to be the starting-point for further work
against torture. In a second resolution, also adopted on 9 December 1975, the General
Assembly requested the Commission on Human Rights to study the question of torture and
any necessary steps for ensuring the effective observance of the Torture Declaration
(resolution 3453 (XXX)). Two years later, on 8 December 1977, the General Assembly
specifically requested the Commission on Human Rights to draw up a draft convention
against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in the light
of the principles embodied in the Torture Declaration (resolution 32/62).

Most of the provisions of the Torture Convention deal with the obligations of the States
parties. These obligations may be summarized as follows:

(i) Each State party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other
measures to prevent acts of torture. The prohibition against torture shall be
absolute and shall be upheld also in a state of war and in other exceptional
circumstances (article 2);

(ii) No State party may expel or extradite a person to a State where there are
substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected
to torture (article 3);

(iii) Each State party shall ensure that acts of torture are serious criminal offences
within its legal system (article 4);

(iv) Each State party shall, on certain conditions, take a person suspected of the
offence of torture into custody and make a preliminary inquiry into the facts
(article 6);

(v) Each State party shall either extradite a person suspected of the offence of
torture or submit the case to its own authorities for prosecution (article 7);
 (vi) Each State party shall ensure that its authorities make investigations when there
is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed
(article 12);

(vii) Each State party shall ensure that an individual who alleges that he has been
subjected to torture will have his case examined by the competent authorities
(article 13);

(viii) Each State party shall ensure to victims of torture an enforceable right to fair
and adequate compensation (article 14)

 Other provisions include:

(i) Each state party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have
been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any
proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the
statement was made.

(ii) Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction
other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do
not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by
or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or
other person acting in an official capacity

Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT)

The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) is an international agreement aimed at preventing torture and
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. OPCAT was adopted in 2002 and entered
into force in 2006. OPCAT is a human rights treaty that assists in the implementation of and builds
on the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment (CAT) and helps States meet their obligations under CAT. The objective of OPCAT is to
prevent the mistreatment of people in detention.

Under OPCAT, State Parties agree to establish an independent National Preventive Mechanism
(NPM) to conduct inspections of all places of detention and closed environments. In addition to the
NPM, State Parties also agree to international inspections of places of detention by the United
Nations Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture (SPT). The SPT engages with states on a
confidential basis and cannot publish reports and recommendations unless under agreement with
the State Party. Furthermore, people who provide information to the SPT may not be subject to
sanctions or reprisals for having done so.

Article 1: The objective of the protocol is to establish a system of regular visits undertaken by
independent international and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty,
in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 2: A Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment of the Committee against Torture (hereinafter referred to as the
Subcommittee on Prevention) shall be established and shall carry out the functions laid down in the
present Protocol.

The Subcommittee on Prevention shall carry out its work within the framework of the Charter of the
United Nations and shall be guided by the purposes and principles thereof

Article 11: The Subcommittee on Prevention shall:

a. Visit the places referred to in article 4 and make recommendations to States Parties
concerning the protection of persons deprived of their liberty against torture and other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

b. In regard to the national preventive mechanisms:

c. Advise and assist States Parties, when necessary, in their establishment;

d. Maintain direct, and if necessary confidential, contact with the national preventive
mechanisms and offer them training and technical assistance with a view to strengthening
their capacities;

e. Advise and assist them in the evaluation of the needs and the means necessary to
strengthen the protection of persons deprived of their liberty against torture and other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

f. Make recommendations and observations to the States Parties with a view to strengthening
the capacity and the mandate of the national preventive mechanisms for the prevention of
torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

g. Cooperate, for the prevention of torture in general, with the relevant United Nations organs
and mechanisms as well as with the international, regional and national institutions or
organizations working towards the strengthening of the protection of all persons against
torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment

Article 20: In order to enable the national preventive mechanisms to fulfil their mandate, the
States Parties to the present Protocol undertake to grant them:

(a) Access to all information concerning the number of persons deprived of their liberty in places
of detention as defined in article 4, as well as the number of places and their location;

(b) Access to all information referring to the treatment of those persons as well as their
conditions of detention;

(c) Access to all places of detention and their installations and facilities;
(d) The opportunity to have private interviews with the persons deprived of their liberty without
witnesses, either personally or with a translator if deemed necessary, as well as with any other
person who the national preventive mechanism believes may supply relevant information;

(e) The liberty to choose the places they want to visit and the persons they want to interview;

(f) The right to have contacts with the Subcommittee on Prevention, to send it information and
to meet with it.

Article 24: Upon ratification, States Parties may make a declaration postponing the
implementation of their obligations under either part III or part IV of the present Protocol.

Article 15: No authority or official shall order, apply, permit or tolerate any sanction against any
person or organization for having communicated to the Subcommittee on Prevention or to its
delegates any information, whether true or false, and no such person or organization shall be
otherwise prejudiced in any way.

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

Article 1: The term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or
preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or
effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of
human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other
field of public life.

Article 2: States Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all
appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms
and promoting understanding among all races, and, to this en

Article 5: In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this
Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its
forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national
or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights:

(a) The right to equal treatment before the tribunals and all other organs administering justice;

(b) The right to security of person and protection by the State against violence or bodily harm,
whether inflicted by government officials or by any individual group or institution;

(c) Political rights, in particular the right to participate in elections-to vote and to stand for
election-on the basis of universal and equal suffrage, to take part in the Government as well as
in the conduct of public affairs at any level and to have equal access to public service;

(d) Other civil rights, in particular:

(i) The right to freedom of movement and residence within the border of the State;
(ii) The right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to one's country;
(iii) The right to nationality;
(iv) The right to marriage and choice of spouse;
(v) The right to own property alone as well as in association with others;
(vi) The right to inherit;
(vii) The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
(viii) The right to freedom of opinion and expression;
(ix) The right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;

(e) Economic, social and cultural rights, in particular:

(i) The rights to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work,
to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favourable
remuneration;
(ii) The right to form and join trade unions;
(iii) The right to housing;
(iv) The right to public health, medical care, social security and social services;
(v) The right to education and training;
(vi) The right to equal participation in cultural activities;

(f) The right of access to any place or service intended for use by the general public, such as
transport hotels, restaurants, cafes, theatres and parks.

Article 8: There shall be established a Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

consisting of 18 experts of high moral standing and acknowledged impartiality elected by States
Parties from among their nationals, who shall serve in their personal capacity, consideration
being given to equitable geographical distribution and to the representation of the different
form of civilization as well of the principal legal systems. The provision also provides the manner
of election of the committee through secret ballot

Article 9: State Parties undertake to submit to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, for
consideration by the Committee, a report on the legislative, judicial, administrative or other
measures which they have adopted and which give effect to the provisions of this Convention.

Article 11: If a State Party considers that another State Party is not giving effect to the provisions
of this Convention, it may bring the matter to the attention of the Committee. The Committee
shall then transmit the communication to the State Party concerned. Within three months, the
receiving State shall submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the
matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by that State

Article 12: After the Committee has obtained and collated all the information it deems
necessary, the Chairman shall appoint an ad hoc Conciliation Commission (hereinafter referred
to as the Commission) comprising five persons who may or may not be members of the
Committee.

Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women

Article 1: For the purposes of the present Convention, the term "discrimination against women"
shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect
or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women,
 irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights
and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.

Article 2: States Parties condemn discrimination against women in all its forms agree to pursue
by all appropriate means and without a delay a policy of eliminating discrimination against
women and to this end, undertake the following:

(a) To embody the principle of the equality of men and women in their national constitutions or
other appropriate legislation if not yet incorporated therein and to ensure, through law and
other appropriate means, the practical realization of this principle;

(b) To adopt appropriate legislative and other measures, including sanctions where appropriate,
prohibiting all discrimination against women;

(c) To establish legal protection of the rights of women on an equal basis with men and to
ensure through competent national tribunals and other public institutions the effective
protection of women against any act of discrimination;

(d) To refrain from engaging in any act or practice of discrimination against women and to
ensure that public authorities and institutions shall act in conformity with this obligation;

(e) To take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women by any person,
organization or enterprise;

(f) To take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws,
regulations, customs and practices which constitute discrimination against women;

(g) To repeal all national penal provisions which constitute discrimination against women.

CEDAW

The Articles mostly reinforce each other

Article 4 CEDAW: 1. Adoption by States Parties of temporary special measures aimed at accelerating
de facto equality between men and women shall not be considered discrimination as defined in the
present Convention, but shall in no way entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or
separate standards; these measures shall be discontinued when the objectives of equality of
opportunity and treatment have been achieved.

2. Adoption by States Parties of special measures, including those measures contained in the present
Convention, aimed at protecting maternity shall not be considered discriminatory.

Article 4 covers not only Formal but also Substantive Equality.

Article 5: States Parties shall take all appropriate measures: (a) To modify the social and cultural
patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and
customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of
either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women;

(b) To ensure that family education includes a proper understanding of maternity as a social function
and the recognition of the common responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and
development of their children, it being understood that the interest of the children is the primordial
consideration in all cases.

Applicability of the Article to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

PART IV (Women and Society)

Article 16

States shall take “all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters
pertaining to marriage and family relations and in particular, shall ensure, equality of men and
women.”

PART V (This is the bureaucratic part of the Convention. The earlier parts lay down the principles).

Article 17

Deals with the Committee under CEDAW.

PART VI

Article 25(3) discusses ratification. India signed the treaty but India took very long to ratify the same.
India also has made some reservations to many provisions of the treaty. USA has signed but not
ratified the treaty.

Article 25(1) deals with signatures by States to become signatories.

OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE CEDAW

See the provisions pertaining to the working of the Committee under CEDAW. No reservations are
permitted to the provisions of this Protocol. India, however, has not yet ratified the Optional
Protocol to the CEDAW.

Article 1: A State Party to the present Protocol (“State Party”) recognizes the competence of the
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (“the Committee”) to receive and
consider communications submitted in accordance with article 2.
Article 2: Communications may be submitted by or on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals,
under the jurisdiction of a State Party, claiming to be victims of a violation of any of the rights set
forth in the Convention by that State Party

Article 4: The Committee shall not consider a communication unless it has ascertained that all
available domestic remedies have been exhausted unless the application of such remedies is
unreasonably prolonged or unlikely to bring effective relief.

Article 5: At any time after the receipt of a communication and before a determination on the merits
has been reached, the Committee may transmit to the State Party concerned for its urgent
consideration a request that the State Party take such interim measures as may be necessary to
avoid possible irreparable damage to the victim or victims of the alleged violation.

Convention of Child Rights and Optional Protocol

Article 1 defines a child as a human being as a child below the age of eighteen years unless under the
law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.

Article 2: States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to
each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or
his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

Article 3: In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare
institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the
child shall be a primary consideration.

Article 5: States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where
applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal
guardians

Article 6: States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life. States Parties shall
ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

Article 7: The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a
name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by
his or her parents.

Article 8: States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity,
including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.

Article 9: States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents
against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in
accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best
interests of the child.

Article 10: States Parties shall take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children
abroad.
Article 13: The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in
writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.

Article 16: No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.

Article 32: States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation
and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's
education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social
development.

Article 33: States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislative, administrative,
social and educational measures, to protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances as defined in the relevant international treaties, and to prevent the use of
children in the illicit production and trafficking of such substances.

Article 34: States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and
sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national,
bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent:

(a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity;

(b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices;

(c) The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials.

Article 37: No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be
imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age;

Article 38: States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not
attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities.

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in
armed conflict

Article 1: States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that members of their armed
forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do not take a direct part in hostilities.

Article 2: States Parties shall ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 18 years are not
compulsorily recruited into their armed forces.

Article 3: States Parties shall raise the minimum age for the voluntary recruitment of persons into
the national armed forces from that set out in article 38, paragraph 3, of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child, taking account of the principles contained in that article and recognizing that
under the Convention persons under the age of 18 years are entitled to special protection.
Optional Protocols complement and add to existing treaties. A protocol may be on any topic relevant
to the original treaty and is used either to further address something in the original treaty, address a
new or emerging concern or add a procedure for the operation and enforcement of the treaty.

They are ‘optional’ because the obligations may be more demanding than those in the original
convention, so States must independently choose whether or not to be bound by them. Optional
Protocols are treaties in their own right, and are open to signature, ratification or accession.

To help stem the abuse and exploitation of children worldwide, the United Nations General
Assembly in 2000 adopted two Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to
increase the protection of children from involvement in armed conflicts and from sale, prostitution
and pornography. In 2014, a third Optional Protocol was adopted, allowing children to bring
complaints directly to the Committee on the Rights of the Child. The Committee then investigates
the claims and can direct governments to take action.

Protecting children in armed conflict

This Optional Protocol is an effort to strengthen implementation of the Convention and increase the
protection of children during armed conflicts.

Under the Protocol, States are required to “take all feasible measures” to ensure that members of
their armed forces under the age of 18 do not take a direct part in hostilities. States must also raise
the minimum age for voluntary recruitment into the armed forces from 15 years but does not
require a minimum age of 18.

The Protocol does, however, remind States that children under 18 are entitled to special protection
and so any voluntary recruitment under the age of 18 must include sufficient safeguards. It further
bans compulsory recruitment below the age of 18. States parties must also take legal measures to
prohibit independent armed groups from recruiting and using children under the age of 18 in
conflicts.

Protecting children from sale, prostitution and pornography [The Optional protocol to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child
pornography]

The Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography draws special
attention to the criminalization of these serious violations of children's rights and emphasizes the
importance of increased public awareness and international cooperation in efforts to combat them.

It supplements the Convention by providing States with detailed requirements to end the sexual
exploitation and abuse of children and also protects children from being sold for non-sexual
purposes – such as other forms of forced labour, illegal adoption and organ donation.

The Protocol provides definitions for the offences of ‘sale of children’, ‘child prostitution’ and ‘child
pornography’. It also creates obligations on governments to criminalize and punish activities related
to these offences. It requires punishment not only for those offering or delivering children for the
purposes of sexual exploitation, transfer of organs or children for profit or forced labour, but also for
anyone accepting the child for these activities.
The Protocol also protects the rights and interests of child victims. Governments must provide legal
and other support services to child victims. This obligation includes considering the best interests of
the child in any interactions with the criminal justice system. Children must also be supported with
necessary medical, psychological, logistical and financial support to aid their rehabilitation and
reintegration. As a complement to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, interpretation of the
Optional Protocol’s text must always be guided by the principles of non-discrimination, best
interests of the child, survival and development, and child participation.

Allowing children to submit complaints, appeals and petitions

This Protocol allows the Committee on the Rights of the Child to hear complaints that a child’s rights
have been violated. Children from countries that ratify the Protocol can use the treaty to seek justice
if the national legal system has not been able to provide a remedy for the violation.

The Committee is able to receive complaints from children, groups of children or their
representatives against any State that has ratified the Protocol. The Committee is also able to launch
investigations into grave or systematic violations of children’s rights and States are able to bring
complaints against each other, if they accepted this procedure.

Article 8(2)(e)(vii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibited the
conscription or enlistment of children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or
using them to participate actively in hostilities.

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Article 1: The purpose of the present Convention is to promote, protect and ensure the full and
equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and
to promote respect for their inherent dignity.

Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory
impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective
participation in society on an equal basis with others.

Article 2 (Definitions):

“Discrimination on the basis of disability" means any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis
of disability which has the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or
exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the
political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. It includes all forms of discrimination,
including denial of reasonable accommodation;

"Reasonable accommodation" means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not
imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to
persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights
and fundamental freedoms;

Article 3:

The principles of the present Convention shall be:

 a. Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one's own
choices, and independence of persons;
b. Non-discrimination;
c. Full and effective participation and inclusion in society;
d. Respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity
and humanity;
e. Equality of opportunity;
f. Accessibility;
g. Equality between men and women;
h. Respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of
children with disabilities to preserve their identities.

Article 4:

States Parties undertake to ensure and promote the full realization of all human rights and
fundamental freedoms for all persons with disabilities without discrimination of any kind on the
basis of disability. To this end, States Parties undertake:

a) To adopt all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the
implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention;

b) To take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws,
regulations, customs and practices that constitute discrimination against persons with
disabilities;

c) To take into account the protection and promotion of the human rights of persons with
disabilities in all policies and programmes;

d) To refrain from engaging in any act or practice that is inconsistent with the present
Convention and to ensure that public authorities and institutions act in conformity with the
present Convention;

e) To take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability by any
person, organization or private enterprise;

f) To undertake or promote research and development of universally designed goods, services,

equipment and facilities, as defined in article 2 of the present Convention, which should
require the minimum possible adaptation and the least cost to meet the specific needs of a
person with disabilities, to promote their availability and use, and to promote universal
design in the development of standards and guidelines;

g) To undertake or promote research and development of, and to promote the availability and
use of new technologies, including information and communications technologies, mobility
aids, devices and assistive technologies, suitable for persons with disabilities, giving priority
to technologies at an affordable cost;
 h) To provide accessible information to persons with disabilities about mobility aids, devices
and assistive technologies, including new technologies, as well as other forms of assistance,
support services and facilities;

i) To promote the training of professionals and staff working with persons with disabilities in
the rights recognized in this Convention so as to better provide the assistance and services
guaranteed by those rights.

Article 5 (Equality and non-discrimination): States Parties recognize that all persons are equal
before and under the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection and
equal benefit of the law

Article 6 and 7 deal with women with women with disabilities and children with disabilities

Article 8 required state parties to adopt measures to raise awareness and combat stereotypes.
Article 9 requires parties to take measures to enable persons with disabilities to live independently
and participate fully in all aspects of life.

Article 10: States Parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take
all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal
basis with others

Article 19 (Living independently and being included in the community): States Parties to this
Convention recognize the equal right of all persons with disabilities to live in the community, with
choices equal to others, and shall take effective and appropriate measures to facilitate full
enjoyment by persons with disabilities of this right and their full inclusion and participation in the
community, including by ensuring that:

A. Persons with disabilities have the opportunity to choose their place of residence and where
and with whom they live on an equal basis with others and are not obliged to live in a
particular living arrangement;

B. Persons with disabilities have access to a range of in-home, residential and other community
support services, including personal assistance necessary to support living and inclusion in
the community, and to prevent isolation or segregation from the community;

C. Community services and facilities for the general population are available on an equal basis
to persons with disabilities and are responsive to their needs.

Article 20 (Personal Mobility): States Parties shall take effective measures to ensure personal
mobility with the greatest possible independence for persons with disabilities

Article 25 (Health): States Parties recognize that persons with disabilities have the right to the
enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination on the basis of
disability. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure access for persons with
disabilities to health services that are gender-sensitive, including health-related rehabilitation.

Article 26 (Habilitation and Rehabilitation): States Parties shall take effective and appropriate
measures, including through peer support, to enable persons with disabilities to attain and maintain
maximum independence, full physical, mental, social and vocational ability, and full inclusion and
participation in all aspects of life. To that end, States Parties shall organize, strengthen and extend
comprehensive habilitation and rehabilitation services and programmes, particularly in the areas of
health, employment, education and social services.
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Article 1: A State Party to the present Protocol ("State Party") recognizes the competence of the
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ("the Committee") to receive and consider
communications from or on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals subject to its jurisdiction
who claim to be victims of a violation by that State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

Article 2:

The Committee shall consider a communication inadmissible when:

(a) The communication is anonymous;

(b) The communication constitutes an abuse of the right of submission of such communications or is
incompatible with the provisions of the Convention;

(c) The same matter has already been examined by the Committee or has been or is being examined
under another procedure of international investigation or settlement;

(d) All available domestic remedies have not been exhausted. This shall not be the rule where the
application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or unlikely to bring effective relief;

(e) It is manifestly ill-founded or not sufficiently substantiated; or when

(f) The facts that are the subject of the communication occurred prior to the entry into force of the
present Protocol for the State Party concerned unless those facts continued after that date.

Article 4: At any time after the receipt of a communication and before a determination on the merits
has been reached, the Committee may transmit to the State Party concerned for its urgent
consideration a request that the State Party take such interim measures as may be necessary to
avoid possible irreparable damage to the victim or victims of the alleged violation.

Important Aspects of International Human Rights Law

1. States are expected to carry out the obligations laid out in treaties in human rights law

2. Treaty implementing mechanisms

a. Periodical reporting is necessary. Suggestions and recommendations are expected to

be implemented

b. Inter-state communication system

Article 246 of the Constitution deals with the subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and by the
Legislatures of States [List I – Union List; List II – State List; List III – Concurrent List]

Article 253 provides that the Parliament has the power to make law for the whole or any part of the
territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or
countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body.

Article 73 states that the executive power of the Union shall extend to the matters with respect to
which Parliament has power to make laws and to the exercise of such rights, authority and
jurisdiction as are exercisable by the Government of India by virtue of any treaty or agreement.
The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

This Act provides for the constitution of National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights
Commission in States and Human Rights Courts for better protection of human rights and for matters
connected

Section 3 provides for the constitution of the National Human Rights Commission. This body shall
consist of:

(a) A chairperson who has been a Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the Supreme Court
(b) One Member who is, or has been, a Judge of the Supreme Court;
(c) One Member who is, or has been the Chief Justice of a High Court;
(d) Three Members, out of which at least one shall be a woman, to be appointed from amongst
persons having knowledge of, or practical experience in, matters relating to human rights.

Section 4 provides for appointment of chairperson and other members by the President on the
recommendation of a committee consisting of:

(a) the Prime Minister -Chairperson; (b) Speaker of the House of the People -Member; (c) Minister
in-charge of the Ministry of Home Affairs in the Government of India -Member; (d) Leader of the
Opposition in the House of the People -Member; (e) Leader of the Opposition in the Council of
States -Member; (f) Deputy Chairman of the Council of States -Member:

Section 6 provides that members and the chairperson shall hold office for a term of three years.

Section 12 deals with the functions of the Commission, which include:

(a) inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf 2 [or on
a direction or order of any court], into complaint of-

(i) violation of human rights or abetment thereof; or

(ii) negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant;

(b) intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights pending before
a Court with the approval of such Court;

[(c) visit, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any jail or
other institution under the control of the State Government, where persons are detained or lodged
for purposes of treatment, reformation or protection, for the study of the living conditions of the
inmates thereof and make recommendations thereon to the Government;]

(d) review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the time being in
force for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective
implementation;

(e) review the factors, including acts of terrorism, that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights and
recommend appropriate remedial measures;

(f) study treaties and other international instruments on human rights and make recommendations
for their effective implementation;

(g) undertake and promote research in the field of human rights;

(h) spread human rights literacy among various sections of society and promote awareness of the
safeguards available for the protection of these rights through publications, the media, seminars and
other available means;

(i) encourage the efforts of non-governmental organizations and institutions working in the field of
human rights;

(j) such other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of human rights

Investigative Powers

Section 13 provides that The Commission shall, while inquiring into complaints under this Act, have
all the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and in particular
in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of
witnesses and examining them on oath; (b) discovery and production of any document; (c) receiving
evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any Court or office;
(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; (f) any other matter which
may be prescribed.

The Commission shall have power to require any person, subject to any privilege which may be
claimed by that person under any law for the time being in force, to furnish information on such
points or matters as, in the opinion of the Commission, may be useful for, or relevant to, the subject
matter of the inquiry and any person so required shall be deemed to be legally bound to furnish such
information within the meaning of section 176 and section 177 of the Indian Penal Code.

Every proceeding before the Commission shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the
meaning of sections 193 and 228, and for the purposes of section 196, of the Indian Penal Code, and
the Commission shall be deemed to be a civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter
XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 14 provides that the Commission may, for the purpose of conducting any investigation
pertaining to the inquiry, utilize the services of any officer or investigation agency of the Central
Government or any State Government with the concurrence of the Central Government or the State
Government, as the case may be.

Section 17 provides that the Commission while inquiring into the complaints of violations of human
rights may- (i) call for information or report from the Central Government or any State Government
or any other authority or organization subordinate thereto within such time as may be specified by
it: Provided that- (a) if the information or report is not received within the time stipulated by the
Commission, it may proceed to inquire into the complaint on its own; (b) if, on receipt of information
or report, the Commission is satisfied either that no further inquiry is required or that the required
action has been initiated or taken by the concerned Government or authority, it may not proceed
with the complaint and inform the complainant accordingly; (ii) without prejudice to anything
contained in clause (i), if it considers necessary, having regard to the nature of the complaint, initiate
an inquiry

International Humanitarian Law and Law of War

International humanitarian law (IHL) is a set of rules that seek for humanitarian reasons to limit the
effects of armed conflict. IHL protects persons who are not or who are no longer participating in
hostilities and it restricts the means and methods of warfare. IHL is also known as the law of war and
the law of armed conflict. A major part of international humanitarian law is contained in the four
Geneva Conventions of 1949 that have been adopted by all nations in the world. The Conventions
have been expanded and supplemented by two further agreements: the Additional Protocols of
1977, relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts, and the 2005 Additional Protocol III,
relating to the adoption of an additional distinctive emblem. These Conventions provide specific
rules to safeguard combatants, or members of the armed forces, who are wounded, sick or
shipwrecked, prisoners of war, and civilians, as well as medical personnel, military chaplains and
civilian support workers of the military

International humanitarian law is founded on the principles of humanity, impartiality and neutrality.
Its roots extend to such historic concepts of justice as Babylon’s Hammurabic Code, the Code of
Justinian from the Byzantine Empire and the Lieber Code used during the United States Civil War.
The development of modern international humanitarian law is credited to the efforts of 19th century
Swiss businessman Henry Dunant. In 1859, Dunant witnessed the aftermath of a bloody battle
between French and Austrian armies in Solferino, Italy. The departing armies left a battlefield littered
with wounded and dying men. Despite Dunant’s valiant efforts to mobilize aid for the soldiers,
thousands died. In “A Memory of Solferino,” his book about the experience, Dunant proposed that
trained volunteer relief groups be granted protection during war in order to care for the wounded. A
group known as the Committee of Five, which later became the International Committee of the Red
Cross, formed in Geneva in 1863 to act on Dunant’s suggestion. Dunant also suggested a formal
agreement between nations “for the relief of the wounded.”

Jus ad Bellum and Jus in bello

Jus ad bellum refers to the conditions under which States may resort to war or to the use of armed
force in general. The prohibition against the use of force amongst States and the exceptions to it
(self-defence and UN authorization for the use of force), set out in the United Nations Charter of
1945, are the core ingredients of jus ad bellum (see the box titled "On the Prohibition against War").
Jus in bello regulates the conduct of parties engaged in an armed conflict. IHL is synonymous with jus
in bello; it seeks to minimize suffering in armed conflicts, notably by protecting and assisting all
victims of armed conflict to the greatest extent possible.

IHL applies to the belligerent parties irrespective of the reasons for the conflict or the justness of the
causes for which they are fighting. If it were otherwise, implementing the law would be impossible,
since every party would claim to be a victim of aggression. Moreover, IHL is intended to protect
victims of armed conflicts regardless of party affiliation. That is why jus in bello must remain
independent of jus ad bellum.

Just war tradition

The Just War tradition is based on the claim that only under certain conditions can war be morally
defensible. Just War theory has claimed a middle ground between the realist tradition, which treats
morality as irrelevant and even dangerous in the life and death stakes that political communities
face in a threatening world, and pacifism, which rejects warfare under any conditions. Just War
arguments are typically divided into two basic categories: the conditions that justify engaging in war
(jus ad bellum) and the rules governing how war should be fought once it has started (jus in bello).
Work on jus ad bellum emphasizes the moral appropriateness of fighting for a “just cause,” defined
as defensive, and only as a last resort. The rules of jus in bello are meant to limit the extent of
violence in war to what is proportional to the grievances that justify a particular war. Rules of jus in
bello protect the lives of innocent civilians and combatants that no longer pose a threat, such as
unarmed captives and the wounded, and limit the destruction of property. In recent decades
increasing attention has been devoted to the moral rules that should guide how wars are ended (jus
post bellum), specifically the political, social, and economic conditions left in the wake of war

Article 51 of the UN Charter deals with the principle of self-defence.

Martens Clause

The Martens Clause has formed a part of the laws of armed conflict since its first appearance in the
preamble to the 1899 Hague Convention (II) with respect to the laws and customs of war on land:

" Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right
to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and
belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they
result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and the
requirements of the public conscience. "

The Clause was based upon and took its name from a declaration read by Professor von Martens, the
Russian delegate at the Hague Peace Conferences 1899. Martens introduced the declaration after
delegates at the Peace Conference failed to agree on the issue of the status of civilians who took up
arms against an occupying force. Large military powers argued that they should be treated as francs-
tireurs and subject to execution, while smaller states contended that they should be treated as
lawful combatants. Although the clause was originally formulated to resolve this particular dispute,
it has subsequently reappeared in various but similar versions in later treaties regulating armed
conflicts.

The problem faced by humanitarian lawyers is that there is no accepted interpretation of the
Martens Clause. It is therefore subject to a variety of interpretations, both narrow and expansive. At
its most restricted, the Clause serves as a reminder that customary international law continues to
apply after the adoption of a treaty norm. A wider interpretation is that, as few international treaties
relating to the laws of armed conflict are ever complete, the Clause provides that something which is
not explicitly prohibited by a treaty is not ipso facto permitted. The widest interpretation is that
conduct in armed conflicts is not only judged according to treaties and custom but also to the
principles of international law referred to by the Clause.

The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legality of the threat or use of
nuclear weapons issued on 8 July 1996, involved an extensive analysis of the laws of armed conflict.
Although this analysis was specific to nuclear weapons, the Opinion required general consideration
of the laws of armed conflict. Inevitably, the oral and written submissions to the ICJ and the resulting
Opinion made considerable reference to the Martens Clause, revealing a number of possible
interpretations. The Opinion itself did not provide a clear understanding of the Clause. However,
State submissions and some of the dissenting opinions provided very interesting insight into its
meaning.

In its submission, the Russian Federation argued that, as a complete code of the laws of war was
formulated in 1949 and 1977, the Martens Clause is now redundant. Both the Geneva Conventions
of 1949 and the two Protocols additional thereto of 1977 restated the Martens Clause. Furthermore,
the 1977 Diplomatic Conference which led to the drafting of Additional Protocol I underlined the
continuing importance of the Martens Clause by moving it from the preamble, where it first
appeared in the 1973 draft, to a substantive provision of the Protocol. Undoubtedly, therefore, the
Martens Clause is still relevant. This was confirmed by Nauru, stating that " ... the Martens Clause
was not an historical aberration. Numerous modern-day conventions on the laws of war have
ensured its continuing vitality. "

The UK argued that the Martens Clause makes clear that the absence of a specific treaty prohibition
on the use of nuclear weapons does not in itself mean that the weapons are capable of lawful use.
However, they argued that the Martens Clause does not itself establish their illegality — it is
necessary to point to a rule of customary international law for a prohibition. The UK then stated that
" it is ... axiomatic that, in the absence of a prohibitive rule applicable to a particular state, the
conduct of the state in question must be permissible ... ". It is clear that the UK adopted a narrow
interpretation of the Clause, reducing the Martens Clause to the status of a reminder of the
existence of positive customary norms of international law not included in specific treaties.

In its Opinion, the ICJ merely referred to the Martens Clause stating that " it has proved to be an
effective means of addressing the rapid evolution of military technology. " This gives little guidance
as to how the Clause should be interpreted in practice. Some of the dissenting opinions were more
revealing. Judge Koroma, in his dissent, challenged the whole notion of searching for specific bans on
the use of weapons, stating that " the futile quest for specific legal prohibition can only be
attributable to an extreme form of positivism. "

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Their Additional Protocols

In 1949, an international conference of diplomats built on the earlier treaties for the protection of
war victims, revising and updating them into four new conventions comprising 429 articles of law—
known as the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949. The Additional Protocols of 1977 and 2005
supplement the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions apply in all cases of declared war, or
in any other armed conflict between nations. They also apply in cases where a nation is partially or
totally occupied by soldiers of another nation, even when there is no armed resistance to that
occupation. Nations that ratify the Geneva Conventions must abide by certain humanitarian
principles and impose legal sanctions against those who violate them. Ratifying nations must “enact
any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing or ordering to
be committed any of the grave breaches (violations)” of the Conventions.

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed
Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949

The First Geneva Convention protects soldiers who are hors de combat (out of the battle). The 10
articles of the original 1864 version of the Convention have been expanded in the First Geneva
Convention of 1949 to 64 articles that protect the following: • Wounded and sick soldiers • Medical
personnel, facilities and equipment • Wounded and sick civilian support personnel accompanying
the armed forces • Military chaplains • Civilians who spontaneously take up arms to repel an
invasion Specific provisions include:

Art.3: In case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of
the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum taking
the following provisions:

1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid
down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other
cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on
race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place
whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and
torture;
b) taking of hostages;
c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment
pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are
recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for

Art. 9 This Convention, like the others, recognizes the right of the ICRC to assist the wounded and
sick. Red Cross and Red Crescent national societies, other authorized impartial relief organizations
and neutral governments may also provide humanitarian service. Local civilians may be asked to care
for the wounded and sick.

Art. 12 The wounded and sick shall be respected and protected without discrimination on the basis
of sex, race, nationality, religion, political beliefs or other criteria.

Art. 12 The wounded and sick shall not be murdered, exterminated or subjected to torture or
biological experiments.

Art. 15 The wounded and sick shall receive adequate care.

Art. 15 The wounded and sick shall be protected against pillage and ill treatment.

Arts. 15-16 All parties in a conflict must search for and collect the wounded and sick, especially after
battle, and provide the information concerning them to the Central Tracing and Protection Agency of
the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Arts. 19-23: It deals with medical units and establishments. Art. 19 provides that fixed
establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be
attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties.

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked
Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949

This Convention replaced Hague Convention of 1907 for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the
Principles of the Geneva Convention. It closely follows the provisions of the first Geneva Convention
in structure and content. It has 63 articles specifically applicable to war at sea. For example, it
protects hospital ships. It has one annex containing a model identity card for medical and religious
personnel.

The Second Geneva Convention adapts the protections of the First Geneva Convention to reflect
conditions at sea. It protects wounded and sick combatants while on board ship or at sea. Its 63
articles apply to the following:

 Armed forces members who are wounded, sick or shipwrecked • Hospital ships and medical
personnel • Civilians who accompany the armed forces

Specific provisions include:

Arts. 12, 18 This Convention mandates that parties in battle take all possible measures to search for,
collect and care for the wounded, sick and shipwrecked. “Shipwrecked” refers to anyone who is
adrift for any reason, including those forced to land at sea or to parachute from damaged aircraft.

Art. 14 While a warship cannot capture a hospital ship’s medical staff, it can hold the wounded, sick
and shipwrecked as prisoners of war, providing they can be safely moved and that the warship has
the facilities to care for them.

Art. 21 Appeals can be made to neutral vessels, including merchant ships and yachts, to help collect
and care for the wounded, sick and shipwrecked. Those who agree to help cannot be captured as
long as they remain neutral.
Art. 22 Hospital ships cannot be used for any military purpose. They cannot be attacked or captured.
The names and descriptions of hospital ships must be conveyed to all parties in the conflict.

Arts. 36-37 Religious, medical and hospital personnel serving on combat ships must be respected
and protected. If captured, they are to be sent back to their side as soon as possible.

The Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949

The Third Geneva Convention sets out specific rules for the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs).
The Convention’s 143 articles require that POWs be treated humanely, adequately housed and
receive sufficient food, clothing and medical care. Its provisions also establish guidelines on labor,
discipline, recreation and criminal trial. Note that prisoners of war may include the following:

• Members of the armed forces

• Volunteer militia, including resistance movements

• Civilians accompanying the armed forces.

Specific provisions include:

Arts. 13-14, 16 Prisoners of war must not be subjected to torture or medical experimentation and
must be protected against acts of violence, insults and public curiosity.

Art. 17 POWs are required to provide to their captors only their name, rank, date of birth and
military service number.

Art. 23 Female POWs must be treated with the regard due their sex.

Arts. 25-27, 30 Captors must not engage in any reprisals or discriminate on the basis of race,
nationality, religious beliefs, political opinions or other criteria.

Arts. 50, 54 POWs must be housed in clean, adequate shelter, and receive the food, clothing and
medical care necessary to maintain good health. They must not be held in combat areas where they
are exposed to fire, nor can they be used to “shield” areas from military operations. They may be
required to do nonmilitary jobs under reasonable working conditions when paid at a fair rate.

Arts. 70-72, 123 Names of prisoners of war must be sent immediately to the Central Tracing Agency
of the ICRC. POWs are to be allowed to correspond with their families and receive relief packages.

Arts. 82, 84 Prisoners are subject to the laws of their captors and can be tried by their captors’
courts. The captor shall ensure fairness, impartiality and a competent advocate for the prisoner.

Arts. 109, 110 Seriously ill POWs must be repatriated (returned home).

Art. 118 When the conflict ends, all POWs shall be released and, if they request, be sent home
without delay.

Art. 125 The ICRC is granted special rights to carry out humanitarian activities on behalf of prisoners
of war. The ICRC or other impartial humanitarian relief organizations authorized by parties to the
conflict must be permitted to visit with prisoners privately, examine conditions of confinement to
ensure the Conventions’ standards are being met and distribute relief supplies.

The Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12,
1949

Civilians in areas of armed conflict and occupied territories are protected by the 159 articles of the
Fourth Geneva Convention. Specific provisions include:

Arts. 13, 32 Civilians are to be protected from murder, torture or brutality, and from discrimination
on the basis of race, nationality, religion or political opinion.

Art. 14 Hospital and safety zones may be established for the wounded, sick, and aged, children
under 15, expectant mothers and mothers of children under seven.

Art. 18 Civilian hospitals and their staff are to be protected.

Arts. 24, 25 This Convention provides for the care of children who are orphaned or separated from
their families. The ICRC’s Central Tracing and Protection Agency is also authorized to transmit family
news and assist with family reunifications, with the help of Red Cross and Red Crescent national
societies.

Art. 27 The safety, honor, family rights, religious practices, manners and customs of civilians are to
be respected.

Arts. 33-34 Pillage, reprisals, indiscriminate destruction of property and the taking of hostages are
prohibited.

Arts. 33, 49 They are not to be subjected to collective punishment or deportation.

Art. 40 Civilians cannot be forced to do military-related work for an occupying force.

Art. 54 They are to be paid fairly for any assigned work.

Art. 55 Occupying powers are to provide food and medical supplies as necessary to the population
and maintain medical and public health facilities.

Arts. 55, 58 Medical supplies and objects used for religious worship are to be allowed passage. Art.
59 When that is not possible, they are to facilitate relief shipments by impartial humanitarian
organizations such as the ICRC. Red Cross or other impartial humanitarian relief organizations
authorized by the parties to the conflict are to be allowed to continue their activities.

Art. 64 Public officials will be permitted to continue their duties. Laws of the occupied territory will
remain in force unless they present a security threat.

Arts. 79-135 If security allows, civilians must be permitted to lead normal lives. They are not to be
deported or interned—except for imperative reasons of security. If internment is necessary,
conditions should be at least comparable to those set forth for prisoners of war.
Arts. 89-91 Internees are to receive adequate food, clothing and medical care, and protected from
the dangers of war.

Art. 106 Information about internees is to be sent to the Central Tracing Agency.

Arts. 108, 107 Internees have the right to send and receive mail and receive relief shipments.

Art. 132 Children, pregnant women, mothers with infants and young children, the wounded and sick
and those who have been interned for a long time are to be released as soon as possible