1. Correspondents' Reports is compiled and edited by the Managing Editor, Ms. Avril McDonald, primarily from information provided to tiie YIHL by its correspondents but also drawing on other sources. It does not purport to be a fully inclusive compilation of all IHL-related developments in every state; reflecting, in this volume, recent developments that have come to the Yearbook's attention. In future volumes, a single year will be covered. While the YIHL apologises for any omissions, it does not accept responsibility for them. Readers are kindly invited to send relevant information to the Managing Editor for inclusion in this section, with a view to promoting its inclusiveness. Where citations or dates have not been provided, they were not available or obtainable.

2. Information provided by Professor Sergio Marchisio, Director, Instituto Di Studi Giuridici Sulla Comunita Internazionale, Rome.

3. See ‘Table of National Bodies for International Humanitarian Law,’ in ‘National Implementation of International Humanitarian Law,’ Annual Report 1996, Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law, International Committee of the Red Cross (Geneva 1997) p. 78.

4. Information provided by Professor José Alejandro Consigli, Assistant Professor of Public International Law, University of Buenos Aires, Member of the Institute of International Law of the Argentine Council for International Relations, and Gabriel Valladares, Assistant Professor of International Humanitarian Law, Buenos Aires University, Member of the Institute of International Law of the Argentine Council for International Relations.

5. The Anti-Nazi Commission of the Argentine Government maintains a website at http://www.ceana.org.ar (Spanish only).

6. See ‘Extradition — to a Hero's Welcome? World War II Camp Chief May be Greeted Warmly in Croatia’, Washington Post (6 05 1998) p. A21Google Scholar.

7. ‘Argentina signs Nazi-Hunting Accord’, Associated Press (1 July 1998).

8. For commentary on this case, see Consigli, at p. 341.

9. See infra, p. 429.

10. There is no guarantee that these projects will become law.

11. Information provided by Mr. Shahen Avakian, Director of Legal Department, and Mr. David Akakessian, LL.M., Head of International Law Section, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Republic of Armenia. All of these laws and agreements can be obtained from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia, Government House, 2 Republic Square, Yerevan, Armenia.

12. Copy on file with the Yearbook.

13. Copy on file with the Yearbook.

14. Information provided by Professor Tim McCormack, Australian Red Cross Professor of International Humanitarian Law, University of Melbourne; member of the Board of Editors, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law.

15. The full-text of the report is available online at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/reports/report50/start.htm/.

16. See ‘Australia pledges support for a global ban on anti-personnel landmines; unilaterally suspends use.’ Media Release of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia, FA22 (15 April 1996).

17. Information provided by Dr. Thomas Desch, Federal Ministry of Defence, and Mag. Peter Kustor, Federal Chancellery, Vienna.

18. Reproduced at p. 561.

19. Source: Table of National Bodies for International Humanitarian Law, Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law, ICRC, as of 31 March, 1998. Thanks to Monika Cometti, Documentalist, Advisory Service on IHL, for supplying this information.

20. Information provided by Professor Marc Cogen, International and European Research Unit, University of Gent, and Professor Eric David, Centre de droit international, Institut de Sociologie, Brussels.

21. Art. 10 bis has been inserted by Art. 1 of the Belgian Law of 14 July 1951, published in Moniteur belge/Belgian Official Journal of 9 August 1951.

22. For an analysis of the findings of a case concerning Canadian peacekeepers in Somalia, see the commentary of Boustany on the Brocklebank case, at p. 371. Investigations concerning the activities of peacekeeping contingents in Somalia have also been concluded by Canada and Italy. For commentary on the Canadian report into the behaviour of Canadian peacekeepers in Somalia, see Young and Molina, at p. 362; for commentary on the report of the Commission of Enquiry into the behaviour of Italian peacekeepers in Somalia, see Lupi, at p. 376. France is also currently undertaking an investigation into the role of its troops in Somalia. For a general discussion of the rights and responsibilities of peacekeepers, see Greenwood, at p. 3.

23. Source Radio BiH, 31 August 1998.

24. Supra n. 3 at p. 51.

25. Supra n. 3 at p. 31.

26. Information provided by Professor René Provost, Faculty of Law, McGill University, Montreal; and Katia Boustany, Professor of International Law at the Department of Legal Studies of the University of Quebec, Montreal.

27. For commentary, see Young and Molina, supra p. 362.

28. For commentary see Boustany at p. 371.

29. Information provided by Professor Zhang Yong, Professor of International Law, Faculty of International Law, University of Nankai, People's Republic of China; member of the Board of Editors, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law.

30. Ibid.

31. The term ‘combatant’ is used by the author in this study in conformity with the Geneva Conventions and IHL.

32. Art 22, the National Defence Law of the People's Republic of China, passed by the 8th National People's Congress on 14 March 1997.

33. Ibid., Art 68.

34. Ibid., Art. 24. The Art. uses the term ‘armed forces’ instead of the term ‘combatants’.

35. Ibid., Art. 53.

36. The Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, Art. 450.

37. Ibid., An. 446. There has not yet been any official comment or elaboration on the Act, and it has not yet been used.

38. Ibid., Art. 444.

39. Information provided by Professor Frits Kalshoven, formerly, Chair in Public International Law and International Humanitarian Law, Leiden University; Officer with the Royal Navy. Currently serving, inter alia, as President of the International Humanitarian Find-Finding Commission; member of the Board of Recommendation, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law.

40. Supra n. 3 at p. 51.

41. For commentary, see Kalshoven at p. 262.

42. Supra, n. 3 at pp. 51–52.

43. Information provided by Professor Maja SerŠić and Professor Ivo Josipović, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb.

44. Published in Narodne novine, no. 110/1997.

45. The provisions of the treaties to which the Republic of Croatia is a party are directly applicable in the Republic of Croatia. Under Art. 134 of the Croatian Constitution, treaties duly concluded and ratified in accordance with the Constitution and published are part of the domestic legal system and overrule municipal statutory law.

46. See supra, p. 404.

47. ‘Details of Death Camp in Document’, Gutman, Roy, New York Newsday(2 05 1998) p. A07Google Scholar.

48. See ‘War Crimes Horrors Revive as Croat Faces Possible Trial’, Hedges, Chris, The New York Times (2 05 1998)Google Scholar; ‘World War II crimes suspect arrives home for trial’, Snjezana Vukić, Associated Press (18 June 1998).

49. ‘Belgrade Court initiates proceedings against Croatian World War II war crimes suspect,’ Tanjug (29 April 1998).

50. Supra p. 404.

51. Ibid.

52. See Table of National Bodies for International Humanitarian Law, Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law, ICRC, as of 31 March 1998. Provided by the Advisory Service, p.7.

53. The Committee was first established on an ad hoc basis in May 1997. Ibid., p. 8. Provided by the Advisory Service.

54. Information provided by Tanel Kerikmäe, lecturer in International Law, Tartu University, Estonia. Laws mentioned regarding Estonia enter into force nine days after their publication in Riigi Teataja, if no other specific date is mentioned in the law.

55. See supra n. 52 at p. 9.

56. Information provided by Professor Lauri Hannikainen, Professor of International Law, Turku Law School, University of Turku and Mr. Juhani Parkkari, Secretary, Finnish Society of Humanitarian Law.

57. Reprinted at p. 619.

58. Reprinted at p. 562.

59. See report of Task Force and Press Release of Foreign Ministry thereon, infra, p. 438.

60. Ibid.

61. See the Chapter on the status of IHL in Finland, in Lauri Hannikainen, Hanski, Raija and Rosas, Allan, Implementing Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts: The case of Finland (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht 1992) pp. 109–113Google Scholar.

62. Finnish Treaty Series 95/1992.

63. Sodan Oikeussäännöt (Helsinki 1997).

64. Information provided by Professor Paul Tavemier, Centre de Recherches et D'Etudes Sur les Droits de l'Homme et le Droit Humanitaire (CREDHO), Faculté Jean Monet, Université de Paris-Sud.

65. Not yet published.

66. Reprinted at p. 616.

67. Reprinted at p. 615.

68. Reprinted at p. 598.

69. Supra n. 3 at p. 53.

70. See Dutli, supra at p. 259.

71. German state practice is discussed by Fisher at p. 380.

72. Information provided by Dr. Maria Gavouneli, Hellenic Institute of International and Foreign Law, Greece.

73. Chapter Eight of the Military Criminal Code, Law 2287/1995, is reprinted at p. 535.

74. By Law 348/1956.

75. By Law 1786/1988.

76. Fischer, H., ‘Protection of prisoners of war’ in Fleck, Dieter, ed., The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts (Oxford 1995) pp. 321–367 at pp. 337–338Google Scholar.

77. According to Art. 372 of the Greek Criminal Code (GrCC), the offence of theft is punishable by incarceration for a period of at least three months.

78. Fischer, op. cit. n. 74, pp. 345–347.

79. It has been argued that, in view of the general obligation of the detaining power to maintain the prisoners of war in a good state of physical and mental health in conjunction with the prohibition of employing them on labour of an unhealthy or hazardous nature (Art. 52 GC III), one may deduce a right of prisoners to work. Nevertheless, the language used in Art 49 GC III, ‘The detaining power may utilise the labour of prisoners of war’, testifies to the contrary.

80. For a brief overview of the status of international law in the Greek legal order, see Gavouneli, M., ‘The jurisprudence of Greek Courts on public international law’, Revue hellénique de droit international 48 (1995) pp. 351–391 at pp. 351–355Google Scholar.

81. The reservation to Art. 2(1) of the Second Optional Protocol is contained in Art. 2 of Law 2462/1997. The 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Optional Protocol thereto and the Second Optional Protocol thereto on the Abolition of the Death Penalty came into force in Greece on 5 August 1997; Ministry of Foreign Affairs communiqué Ö.0546/63/ÁÓ292/ M.2870 dated 7/16.5.1997.

82. The same article further stated that for the implementation of the relevant guarantees of judicial independence to military courts, an Act of Parliament was necessary: the new Military Criminal Code came into force a few months after the 20th anniversary of the Constitution.

83. For example, Full Bench of Areios Pagos 169/1984, NoB 44 (1984) 539–541Google Scholar; Full Bench of Areios Pagos 464/1992, NoB 40 (1992) 915Google Scholar; Areios Pagos 882/1995, NoB 44 (1996) 261–262Google Scholar.

84. Greece ratified the European Convention first by Law 2329/1953 and again, in a symbolic fashion after the brief interlude of the affaire grecque, by Legislative Decree 53/1974; Vegleris, Ph. & Kiss, A., ‘L'affaire grecque devant le Conseil de l'Europe et la Commission européenne des droits de l'homme’, AFDI (1971) pp. 890–931Google Scholar. For the current status of the Convention in the Greek legal order see Krateros loannou, M., ‘The application of the European Convention on Human Rights in the Greek legal order’, Revue hellénique de droit européen (1996) p. 223 et seqGoogle Scholar. at 236–237; Gavouneli, op cit. n. 78, at pp. 375–376.

85. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. Ltd. and International Synthetic Rubber Co. Ltd. v. United Kingdom, case 5460/1972, Collection of Decisions 43, 99; see also Sieghart, Paul, The International Law of Human Rights (Oxford 1983) pp. 284–285Google Scholar.

86. Note, however, the critique on the broad language used in Art 74 MCrC which was, nevertheless, found by the European Court of Human Rights to meet the standard of foreseeability required by the ‘prescribed by law’ formula in Art. 10 ECHK; Grigoriades v. Greece, Judgment of 25 11 1997, paras. 34–38Google Scholar.

87. Greece has ratified and thus incorporated into domestic law, with force superior to that of a common Statute (according to Art. 28 of the Constitution), most of the treaties pertaining to either Hague or Geneva Law. Some of the older Conventions have remained without ratification but, to the extent that they have acquired customary law status, they have also become part of the law of the land applicable by the courts and administrative authorities alike.

88. Information provided by Péter Kovács, Professor of International Law, Péter Pázmány Catholic University of Budapest and Miskolc University. Unofficial translations by Prof. Kovaćs.

89. By this I understand, a) the laws giving partly symbolic, partly monetary satisfaction to the victims of the totalitarian regimes in Hungary, and b) the legal and political efforts to judge the collaborators of those regimes (especially the Hungarian collaborators with the Soviet invasion of 1956) even if their crimes (like murder) had been covered by the rule of prescription.

90. ‘833:1) The punishability is prevented by the prescription: a) after 20 years if the crime can be punished also by capital punishment; b) in other cases, by the respective maximum time of the confinement but at least 3 years.

2) There is no prescription if the crime is a war crime under Act VII of 1945 or a crime against humanity.’

91. The Bill is named for the MPs who submitted it. The Bill was adopted by the Parliament on 4 November 1991 under the title, ‘About the punishability of serious crimes committed between the 21st December 1944 and the 2nd of May 1990, if they were not prosecuted because of political reasons.’

92. Filed on 16 November 1991.

93. Decision N° 11/1992 (III.5) AB.

94. Adopted on 16 February 1993.

95. Art. 1 referring to Act VII of 1945 on the procedure of the people's court (for war crimes of World War ll).

96. Alkotmánybiróság 53/1993(X.13) AB határozata (Magyar Közlöny: 1993/147 pp. 8793–8801) Decision N° 53/1993 (X.13.) AB (Official Journal): 1993/147 pp. 8793–8801.

97. Ibid., at p. 8795 (Part III: § a and b).

98. See decision N° 53/1993 — Official Journal 1993/147 p. 8798 (Part V, § 1).

99. See decision N° 53/1993 Ą Official Journal 1993/147 p. 8795 (Part III: § a).

100. Ibid.

101. The Constitutional Court pointed out that the grave violations referred to in Art. 147 of the IV Geneva Convention concern only Art. 2 but not common Art. 3. See decision N° 36/1996 Official Journal: 1996/75 p. 4674 (Part II: §1).

102. See decision N° 36/1996 Official Journal: 1996/75 pp. 4674–4675 (Part. II: §2). A trial of two persons accused of the shootings of Tiszakécske on 27 October 1956 opened in the Military Chamber of the District Court of Csongrád on 9 June 1998. The facts of the case are alleged as followed: ‘After having received a false piece of news about an alleged pogrom against local politicians, the commandant of the 3rd Division gave an order to the commandant of the air brigade at Keeskemét to fly over Tiszakécske in order to shoot on the masses (…) 12 people were reported to have died and 102 were injured. The first indictee, the vice-colonel Török, tried to convince his superior of the unlawfulness of the order but he was threatened to be put before a war court so he transmitted the order to commandant Korbély (second indictee) who ordered the pilot to [carry out] the executions. The accusation is based on [a] crime against humanity running counter [to] the Geneva Conventions. The pronouncement of the verdict is scheduled for mid-July.’ See Magyar Nemzet of 9 June 1998.

This accusation may seem strange, given that the Geneva Conventions are not concerned with crimes against humanity. The reason for any confusion resides in the bad structure of the Hungarian Criminal Code (Act IV of 1978). Its Chapter XI is entitled: Crimes against humanity. Its first title: Crimes against peace § 153 War Propaganda, § 154: Crime against freedom of peoples, § 155: genocide, § 156: crime against national, racial or religious groups, § 157: racial discrimination. Second title: War crimes § 158: duress against civilian population, § 159: Pillage of the civilian population, § 160: Criminal warfare § 161: pillage on the battlefield, § 162: violation of armistice § 163: duress against truce-bearer, § 164: perfidy (abuse of Red Cross, Red Crescent etc., symbols) § 165: other war crimes (with a very complicated formulation it concerns the war crimes committed during WWII).

From the point of view of the relationship of humanitarian law and crimes against humanity, this structure is very problematic, even erroneous, but this is the positive law. The two indictees in the Tiszakécske case are charged under § 160: criminal warfare, which provides: ‘Any commandant, who — in violation of the international legal rules of warfare: a) performs any military activity, causing serious harm to health or patrimony of the civilian population, to internationally protected cultural objects or to buildings containing dangerous substances, or b) launches an attack against non-defended or weaponless zones, commits a crime, subject to imprisonment for 10–15 years or for perpetuity.’ (Unofficial translation by Dr. Kovács.)

103. Information provided by Mr. Fadillah Agus, Secretary, The Centre Study on International Humanitarian Law, Faculty of Law at Trisakti University, Jakarta.

104. Staatsblad 1934 no. 168.

105. Under Art. 7.

106. Under Art. 5.

107. Under Art. 7(2).

108. Law N° 14 of 1970.

109. Law N° 20 of 1982.

110. Such as Law N° 5 of 1950; Law N° 5 pnps of 1965, and Law N° 3 pnps of 1965.

111. Under Art. 9.

112. Under Art 49.

113. Under Art. 50.

114. The legal basis for the formation of the Indonesian Red Cross Society is Presidential Decree N° 25 of 1950 and Presidential Decree N° 246 of 1963 concerning the Indonesian Red Cross Society.

115. Promulgated on 19 September 1982.

116. Manual no. LB-164-STRATOPS of 1979.

117. Supra n. 3, at p. 53.

118. Information provided by Mr. Ray Murphy, University College Galway and Professor Colm Campbell, Dean of the Law School, University College Galway, Republic of Ireland.

119. Ibid.

120. Statutory Instrument 269/1997 signed by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment.

121. Art. II: Definitions and Criteria, Paragraph 1 of the Convention.

122. Art. X(2) of the Convention states that ‘Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as impeding the right of any State Party to conduct research into, develop, produce, acquire, transfer or use means of protection against chemical weapons, for purposes not prohibited under this Convention.’

123. Art. VII: National implementation measures, para. 4 of the Convention.

124. Statement by Minister for State, Ms. E. Fitzgerald, Dail Debates, Vol. 478, (23 April 1997) p. 256.

125. Art. VII, National Implementation Measures, the Convention.

126. Section 33.

127. Part VI, Verification Annex, the Convention.

128. Part VII, Verification Annex, the Convention.

129. Part VIII sets forth the regime of declarations, State Party obligations and verification pursuant to para. 5 of Art. VI, relating to Schedule 3 chemicals and to facilities which produce such chemicals above a certain threshold.

130. Information provided by Professor Eyal Benvenisti, Faculty of Law, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel and Professor Ruth Lapidoth, Faculty of Law, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. Official citations for these materials could not be found.

131. Information provided by Professor Sergio Marchisio, Director, Instituto di Studi Giuridici Sulla Comunita' Intemazionale, Rome and Professor Paolo Benvenuti, Chair of International Law, Facolta di Scienze Politiche, Universita di Firenza; Presidente della Commissione Nazionale CRI per la Diffusione del diritto umanitario.

132. For commentary, see Gargiulo, p. 323.

133. The report is analysed by Lupi at p. 375.

134. The Priebke case is considered by Professor Sergio Marchisio and Dr. Francesca Martines at pp. 344 + 354 respectively.

135. Source: Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law, ICRC.

136. See ‘Magazine to Print Japan War Stories’, Associated Press (6 April 1998).

137. Information provided by Professor Jae Ho Sung, Professor of International Law, Sung Kyun Kwan University, Republic of Korea. The comments are drawn from a longer study of customary international law in the Republic of Korea, prepared by Professor Sung for the ICRC study on customary international humanitarian law.

138. Supra n. 3, at p. 52.

139. Supra n. 3, at p. 52.

140. See ‘Lawyer for alleged war criminal asked that charges be dismissed,’ Lev Krichevsky, JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency) (4 March 1998); ‘Lithuanian Judge delays trial of alleged Nazi war criminal,’ Lev Krichevsky, JTA (18 May 1998).

141. See ‘Second alleged war criminal faces prosecution in Lithuania,’ JTA (1 March 1998).

142. Supra n. 3, at p. 52.

143. Supra n. 3, at p. 94.

144. IRRC No. 322, March 1998, p. 184.

145. Information provided by Professor Nico Keijzer, Professor of International Criminal Law, Catholic University of Brabant.

146. Decision 3717 of 11 November 1997. Reprinted infra at p. 600.

147. Information provided by Prof. Tim McCormack, supra n. 14.

148. ‘Under the heading, “Delilos de carácter intenacional”, Art. 551 of the Nicaraguan penal code adopts a very comprehensive approach to the prosecution of any violation of humanitarian law, whether committed in time of international or civil war. Art. 16, para. 3(f), of the code gives Nicaraguan courts jurisdiction over offences included under this heading, irrespective of who committed them and where.’ Graditzky, Thomas, ‘International criminal responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law committed in non-international armed conflicts,’ IRRC No. 322, 05 1998, p. 29 at 41Google Scholar.

149. Information provided by Mr. Michael Ibanga, Faculty of Law, University of Calabar Calabar — Cross River State, Nigeria.

150. Supra n. 3, at pp. 52–53

151. Ibid.

152. For commentary on this agreement, see McCormack, at p. 292.

153. See Joint Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer MP and the Minister for Defence, Ian McLaughlin AO, MP, 5 December 1997: ‘Bougainville Truce Monitoring Group’. Text of the release available online at www.dfat.gov.au/pmb/releases/fa/fa149_97.html.

154. Information provided by Professor Alfonso Velásquez, Professor of International Law, Catholic University of Asunción.

155. Reproduced in part at p. 621.

156. Art. 8, Title 1, Chapter II, Application of the Law.

157. Table of National Bodies for Implementation of International Humanitarian Law, Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law, ICRC, as of 31 March 1998, p. 13.

158. Information provided by Professor Raul Vinuesa, Professor of International Law and Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Buenos Aires.

159. Reprinted infra at p. 623.

160. Information provided by Professor Jerzy Menkes, Professor at the University of Commerce and Law, Warsaw.

161. ‘Generally applicable in time of war, armed conflict, and occupation, Arts. 241 and 242 of the Portuguese penal code covers some aspects of humanitarian law (war crimes against civilians and the destruction of monuments, respectively). However, Art. 5 extends jurisdiction beyond the national territory and to non-nationals only in certain specified cases, which, curiously enough, include only the second of the above-mentioned articles, or when such jurisdiction is imposed by international treaty provisions.’ Graditzky, Thomas, ‘International criminal responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law committed in non-international armed conflicts,’ IRRC No. 322 (05 1998) p. 29 at p. 43Google Scholar.

162. Supra n. 52.

163. Information provided by Professor Igor Blischchenko, Professor of International Law, Russian University of Friendship, Moscow.

164. Information provided by Ms. Catherine Cissé, Legal Advisor to the Chief Prosecutor, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

165. Reprinted at p. 625.

166. Supra n. 52.

167. Information provided by Grega Peljhan, Attorney at Aleš Rojs, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

168. Information provided by Professor Michael Cowling, School of Law, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.

169. Supra n. 3 at p. 95.

170. Information provided by Antoni Pigrau i Solé, Vice-rector D'Estudiants i Docència, Professor of Public International law, Rovira i Virgili University (Tarragona), Spain.

171. Title XXIV of the New Penal Code, dealing with Crimes against the International Community, is reproduced at p. 636.

172. Act 55/71 of 15 November 1971 and Decree 3096/1973 of 15 September 1973.

173. Spain acceded to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 on 4 August 1952 and the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954 on 7 July 1960. Spain acceded to the two Additional Protocols of 1977 on 11 April 1989.

174. Spain acceded to the Convention on 8 August 1985.

175. Spain acceded to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961 on 21 November 1967 and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963 on 3 February 1970.

176. Spain acceded to this Convention on 13 September 1968.

177. See Garrido, D. López and Arán, M. Garcia, El Código penal de 1995 y la voluntad del legislador [The Penal Code of 1995 and the will of the legislator] (Madrid, 1996) pp. 208–209Google Scholar.

178. The crime of piracy disappears from the penal code but, however, is still typified in the special penal laws: Arts. 9 and 10 of the Penal Act of the Merchant Navy [Ley Penal de la Marina Mercante] and Arts. 39 and 40 of the Penal and Procedural Act of Aerial Navigation [Ley Penal y Procesal de la Navegación Aérea].

179. See Olivares, G. Quintero et al. , Comentarios a la Parte Especial del Derecho Penal [Comments on the Special Part of the Penal Law] (Pamplona, Aranzadi, 1996) pp. 1637–1638Google Scholar.

180. In the first text of 1971, the term ‘social’ was used instead of the term ‘racial’. The modification in 1983 substituted the term ‘social’ for ‘racial’ although there was no separation between the term ‘ethnic’ and the term ‘national’. That is to say, it spoke of the ‘racial, religious or ethnic national group’.

181. For a critique of this option, see G. Quintero Olivares et al., op. cit. n.179, at pp. 1640–1642.

182. From a substantial approach, while the Spanish Military Criminal Code does not include any type of crime to protect cultural goods, the NPC does. Looking at it from the point of view of the penal technique, the Military Criminal Code follows the criterion of aggravating common crimes when they take place during an armed conflict; and the new Criminal Code prefers the confluence of crimes, adding to the breaches of IHL — for which a less grevious penalty is foreseen — the punishment derived from the concrete attack on protected persons or goods.

183. For a commentary on the regulations of the military penal code, see Sánchez, J. M. Silva. ‘Represión de los críimenes de guerra y crímenes internacionales en el Derecho penal español’ [Repression of War Crimes and International Crimes in Spanish Criminal Law], in Honrubia, V. Abellán, ed., La regulatión juridica internacional de los conflictos armados [International Legal Regulation of Armed Conflicts] (Barcelona, Cruz Roja Cataluña, 1992) pp. 182–185Google Scholar.

184. Supra n. 3 at p. 96.

185. Information provided by Anne-Marie La Rosa, International Labour Office, Freedom of Association Branch, Geneva and A.D. Henchoz, Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs, Bern.

186. Loi fédérale sur l'entraide Internationale en materière pénale, RS 351.1.

187. In order to avoid unnecessary delay. Recourse may, however, be made to the Federal Tribunal against a decision of a first instance authority competent to deal with the International Tribunal's requests.

188. At its 8th plenary meeting, on 13 October 1995, the Review Conference, by consensus, adopted the text of the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV) (CCW/CONF.I/7). On 12 December 1995, the UN SG circulated Protocol IV to all states. At its 14th plenary meeting, on 3 May 1996, the Conference adopted by consensus the amended Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-traps and Other Devices. See Final Report of the Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects.’ Geneva 1996 (GE.96–61703) CCW.CONF.I/16 (Part I), paras. 36–37. For the text of Protocol IV, see p. 594; for the text of amended Protocol II, see p. XX. For commentary on Protocol IV, see Zöckler, p. 333.

189. Art. 2 (3) defines anti-personnel mines, for the purposes of the Protocol, as ‘a mine primarily designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons’. In its interpretative declaration, Switzerland specified that it interprets the definition of anti-personnel mines as excluding all mines designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a vehicle, when equipped with an anti-manipulation device.

190. Art. 109 reads as follows: Violations of the Laws of War (violations des lois de la guerre): (1) Whoever acts contrary to the provisions of any international agreement governing the laws of war or the protection of persons and property, or whoever acts in violation of any other recognized law or custom of war shall be punished with imprisonment except in cases where other provisions involving more severe sanctions are applicable. For offences of high gravity, the penalty is penal servitude.

(2) For offences of little gravity, the punishment can consist of a disciplinary sanction.

191. Judgement, pp. 8–9. For further commentary on this case, see Ziegler, Andreas R. in 92 AJIL, (01 1998) p. 78CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a contrary finding on the character of the conflict, see the opinion of the majority in Prosecutor v. Tadić, Opinion and Judgment, Case No. IT-94-1-T, 7 May 1997, paras. 577–608. See Year in Review at pp. 139–141.

192. Information provided by Professor Françoise Hampson, Dean of the School of Law, University of Essex. Thanks to Mr. Paul Berman, Assistant Legal Adviser, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London, and Dr. Danesh Sarooshi, Lecturer in Public International Law, University College London, University of London.

193. The statement reads as follows: ‘It is the understanding of the Government of the United Kingdom that the mere participation in the planning or execution of operations, exercises or other military planning activity by the United Kingdom's Armed Forces, or individual United Kingdom nationals, conducted in combination with the armed forces of States not party to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and of their Destruction, opened for signature at Ottawa on 3 December 1997, which engage in activity prohibited under that Convention, is not, by itself, assistance, encouragement or inducement for the purposes of Art. 1, paragraph 1 (c) of the Convention.’

194. Reprinted at p. 640.

195. War Crimes Act 1991, 1991 Chapter 13. Enacted 9 May 1991. The Act gives UK courts jurisdiction ‘in respect of certain grave violations of the laws and customs of war committed in German-held territory during the Second World War and for connected purposes’.

196. Information provided by Mr. Burrus Carnahan, Senior Analyst, Science Applications International Corp., McClean, Va.; Lt. Colonel, USAF (ret); Commander Ron Neubauer, US Department of Defense, Office of General Counsel, Member of the Board of Recommendation, YIHL; and Professor em. Howard Levie, St. Louis University Law School.

197. Reprinted at p. 643.

198. See, Title 18 US Code section 2340A.

199. Reprinted at p. 643.

200. Reprinted at p. 595.

201. Reprinted at p. 592.

202. Reprinted at p. 566.

203. Reprinted at p. 595.

204. Reprinted at p. 607. For commentary, see Paust, p. 205.

205. Supra n. 52, at p. 16.

206. See Dutli at p. 255.

207. See Dutli at p. 254.