It is well known that African societies are shaped by custom and tradition. African thought, deeply imbued with humanism, has given birth to concepts and practices that place these societies among the world's humanitarian civilizations. With the advent of the colonial era and the establishment of institutions based on foreign values, the manifestations of African ideas was put into abeyance. Subsequent independence, while giving African States the opportunity to participate alongside other nations in constructing a universal civilization, paradoxically brought the continent face to face with a dilemma in regard to economic, political, social and cultural matters: the choice between the wholesale adoption of foreign, particularly European, models, or a radical return to ancestral traditions. However, humanitarian concerns are among the few that can—and should—transcend such Manichean considerations.

The Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent are the cornerstone of the doctrine of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The Movement's mission and its activities are built on the Principles, which are binding on all its components in all circumstances. The members of the Movement are under the obligation to spread understanding and knowledge of the Principles, the better to ensure respect for them.

Torture is prohibited by public international law and explicitly forbidden by domestic legislation in many countries. Yet the least that can be said is that it continues to be practised today, whether by the use of violence or by increasingly insidious methods, more and more frequently involving children. To such an extent that in 1976, realizing the magnitude and seriousness of the problem, the ICRC felt obliged to speak out and explain the efforts it deploys to combat torture. And perhaps never since the end of the seventies have so many governmental and non-governmental international organizations been so active in the fight against torture.

The ultimate purpose of dissemination of and compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) is to mitigate the effects of armed conflict and provide the best possible protection for its victims. At the same time, IHL fosters wider acceptance of the ideals of humanity and peace between peoples. The relationship between IHL, the struggle for peace and the prohibition of the use of force is becoming ever clearer as the realization grows that lasting peace, development and peaceful international co-operation can be achieved only on the basis of compliance with international law and respect for human life and dignity.

The emblems of the red cross and the red crescent are both the strength and the weakness of the Movement.

They are its strength because, being the visible and respected symbols of relief to war victims, over the past 125 years they have enabled the Movement to provide protection, assistance and human warmth to millions of wounded persons, prisoners, families and children during the most terrible conflicts mankind has ever known. They are the strength of our Movement because all over the world the image they convey is one of humanity and compassion.

It has rightly been said that the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement does not stand for any specific philosophy or moral doctrine. Neither the fundamental principles nor international humanitarian law (IHL) provide a methodical interpretation of human nature or an inventory of the moral rights and obligations of the Movement's members. The Movement adheres to no particular ideology or political system. On the contrary, its universality enables it, with varying degrees of success, to adapt to or even influence various political regimes or tendencies in order to promote humanitarian aims. This ability can be attributed in particular to its respect for the principle of neutrality.

In ancient times some of the great commanders were accompanied on their campaigns by their personal doctors. The Romans had at least one doctor for each cohort (about 500 to 600 men), and a legion, which consisted of ten cohorts, had a medicus legionis, probably a sort of chief medical officer. At the time of the Crusades, the Sultan Saladin gave an example of humanity by authorizing the doctors of the adverse party to care for the Christian prisoners and then to return through the lines. Arab doctors treated Saint Louis. But it was not until the sixteenth century that an organized medical service was started in European armies. It was still, however, sadly inadequate.

It is generally acknowledged by the international community that the taking of hostages is one of the most vile and reprehensible of acts. This crime violates fundamental individual rights—the right to life, to liberty and to security—that are protected by binding legal instruments such as the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the worldwide level, and the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights and the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms on the regional level. The United Nations General Assembly has stated that the taking of hostages is an act which places innocent human lives in danger and violates human dignity.

In the first half of the nineteenth century in Europe, each army used a different colour to mark its medical services: Austria a white flag, France a red one, Spain yellow, others black. Sometimes, the emblems varied from one corps of troops to another. Moreover, the carts used to transport the wounded bore no particular markings to distinguish them from the other army service vehicles, and there was no means of identifying members of the medical corps at a distance.

It is commonly accepted that education in human rights may be one of the most effective tools in promoting the observance of those rights. Those whose profession entails the exercise of power over others have an obvious need to know the limits of their power and members of the armed forces represent just such a group. Their acts engage the responsibility of their State under human rights treaties, wherever those acts are committed. Some instruction in human rights law, particularly non-derogable rights, is therefore necessary but the body of rules which imposes the greatest prohibitions and restraints on the conduct of armed forces is humanitarian law. That term is used here as including both “The Hague law”, which imposes limits on the means and methods of warfare, and “Geneva law”, which seeks to protect certain victims of the conflict, such as the wounded and sick in the field, the wounded, sick and shipwrecked at sea, prisoners of war and civilians living under belligerent occupation. The latter body of rules was updated in 1977 by the addition of two Protocols which extended the range of protection by incorporating elements of “The Hague law”. The 1949 Geneva Conventions have been ratified by 166 States and Hague Convention IV, with which we shall principally be dealing, was held by the Nuremberg Tribunal to represent customary international law. To all intents and purposes then, every State is bound by the two bodies of rules. In addition, the 1977 Protocols are binding on those States which have ratified them.

The idea of “respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all” has been disseminated throughout the world since the Second World War and has influenced both international law and national legislation in many States. Nevertheless, torture, that most fundamental assault on the human person, has continued over the years to be practised, either systematically or occasionally, in many countries. Torture, in which a person is intentionally subjected to extreme physical pain or emotional distress, is used mainly to elicit information, break the will to resist, intimidate, humiliate and degrade. It is also used to mete out (illegal) punishment for real or supposed wrongdoings.2 Techniques of torture include withholding food and preventing sleep, abrupt alternation of extreme cold and heat or silence and noise, total isolation, causing mental confusion and distress through misinformation or other means, the use of brute force- sometimes resulting in permanent mutilation- rape, electric shocks, the application of chemicals and Pharmaceuticals, finally death threats.

A neutral Power may authorize the passage over its territory of the sick and wounded belonging to the belligerent armies, on condition that the trains bringing them shall carry neither personnel nor war material. In such a case, the neutral Power is bound to take whatever measures of safety and control are necessary for the purpose (Hague Conv. No. V, Art. 14). (Personnel and materials necessary to treat the sick and wounded are consequently authorized).

A certain State-recognized civilian hospital employed two kinds of doctors who appeared on its staff lists: full-time doctors, and part-time doctors used to reinforce its medical team during an armed conflict with a neighbouring country. Some weeks later the country was occupied by the enemy. Two part-time doctors on their way home in a private car marked with a red cross for protective purposes were stopped by a police patrol, which seized the car and confiscated the doctors' identifying armlets. This was done on the grounds that improper use was being made of the Red Cross emblem as a protective device, contrary to Articles 24, 25, 26 and 44 of the First Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armed forces in the field, and Articles 20 and 21 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war.

The International Committee of the Red Cross welcomes all attempts to strengthen the protection against torture of persons deprived of their freedom. It therefore welcomes the adoption of the European Convention for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which should enable an effective system of control to be established for the prevention and elimination of such inhuman practices in the member countries of the Council of Europe that may have ratified the Convention.

The Geneva Conference of August 1864 was held behind closed doors. A drawing published in the satirical paper the Carillon de Saint-Gervais is indicative of the reaction of journalists to this decision. It depicts three characters, symbolizing three Geneva newspapers, the Journal de Genève, La Démocratic suisse and the Carillon de Saint-Gervais, locked out of the International Congress whose door bears a sign saying “no entry”. The caption translates as follows: Tribune open to the press, courtesy of the International Congress”. This was probably the first manifestation of a certain reserve which has been apparent on occasion in relations between the humanitarian agencies and the media. Happily, times have changed. Nowadays, information and dissemination have become essential components of the policy of the International Committee of the Red Cross, and it may safely be assumed that a cartoonist illustrating an International Conference would now show the doors wide open.

On 27 June 1986, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave judgment in the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua. The case, involving Nicaragua against the United States of America, is remarkable in many respects, and so is the judgment. I should like to single out two special features: it deals with a situation of armed conflict, and it mentions the Red Cross.

The persons protected by the Geneva Conventions must be accorded respect in the first place because they are human beings. But they also are entitled to a certain degree of respect in their capacity as individuals, soldiers, nationals of a foreign State and, to a certain extent, as combatants.

The idea of the Red Cross was born of suffering, suffering in war. It was followed by humanitarian action for the benefit of all humanity, and has been enhanced with the knowledge and experience gained throughout the many years of its long history.

We have seen how one man, a good man, struck with compassion for those who were suffering, was able to arouse that same compassion and will to help in many hitherto indifferent people, how he was able to convince them to give what was best in them to a noble humanitarian cause. In doing their humanitarian work, these people did not ask who was friend and who was foe. Only one thing mattered: to alleviate suffering and save human lives.

The part played by army medical officers in the beginnings of the humanitarian movement that led to the foundation of the Red Cross 125 years ago is all too often unrecognized. Until the foundation of societies for the relief of the wounded brought their names into the limelight, their writings were hardly known outside their small professional circle, although they had taken part in international exchanges that were in themselves remarkable. Their position was made all the more difficult by their feeling bound to protest at the shortcomings of a service of which they were active members, but in whose decisions they had no voice.