No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
National implementation of international humanitarian law: Biannual update on national legislation and case law January – June 2005
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 April 2010
Extract
Decree No. 138 on implementing the Law on the use of the red cross and red crescent emblem and other emblems protected under the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols was adopted on 25 January 2005 and published in the official gazette on 27 January 2005. The Decree regulates the use of the emblem as a protective device by the medical and religious personnel of the armed and police forces and by civilian medical personnel when so authorized by the Ministry for Social Protection. It provides for disciplinary sanctions in cases of misuse of the emblem and requires that measures be taken by the Ministry of National Defence and the Directorate-General of the National Police to spread knowledge of the rules on the use and protection of the red cross emblem and other distinctive signs, and to incorporate those rules into policy and military doctrine.
- Type
- Reports and documents
- Information
- International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 87 , Issue 859: Means of warfare , September 2005 , pp. 587 - 595
- Copyright
- Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 2005
References
1 Decreto número 138 de 2005 por el cual se reglamentan los artículos 5°, 6°, 14 y 18 de la Ley 875 de 2004, Diaro Oficial de 27 de enero de 2005, pp. 42–45.
2 Ley 875 del 2 de enero de 2004 por la cual se regula el uso del emblema de la cruz roja y de la media luna Roja y otros emblemas protegidos por los Convenios de Ginebra del 12 de agosto de 1949 y sus Protocolos Adicionales. See National implementation of international humanitarian law — Biannual update on national legislation and case law, January — June 2004, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 86, No. 855, September 2004, p. 694.
3 Decreto número 471 — Reforma al Código penal, Diario oficial del 22 de noviembre de 2004, p. 13.
4 Loi N° 2005–270 du 24 mars 2005 portant statut général des militaires, publié au Journal Officiel N° 72 du 26 mars 2005, p. 5098.
5 Erstes Gesetz zur Änderung des Ausführungsgesetzes zum Chemiewaffenüberemkommen (1 CWÜAGÄndG) vom 11. Oktober 2004, Bundesgesetzblatt Jahrgang 2004 Teil I Nr. 54, ausgegeben zu Bonn am 15. Oktober 2004, p. 2575.
6 Décret relatif au Comité International de la Croix-Rouge, publié au Journal Officiel (“Le Moniteur”) N°28 du 11 avril 2005.
7 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, 1 UNTS 15, 13 February 1946.
8 Ley de protección del emblema de la cruz roja y de la media luna roja, la Gaceta — Diario oficial del 2 de marzo del 2005, nümero 30.636, p. A. 2.
9 Published in the Official Journal of 2 March 2005.
10 Ley número 28413 que regula la ausencia por desaparición forzada durante el período 1980–2000, El Peruano del 11 de diciembre de 2004, p. 282115.
11 Decree of the Minister of Defence of Ukraine No. 400, Kiev, “Azimut-Ukraine” Publishing House, 2004, p. 144.
12 Décret N° 2005– 100/PRES/PM/MPDH portant création, attributions, composition et fonctionnement du comité interministériel des droits humains et du droit international humanitaire.
13 Prime Ministerial Resolution No. 32 of 2004 regarding the establishment of the National United Arab Emirates Commission for International Humanitarian Law.
14 Cour d'Arbitrage, Arrêt N° 62/2005 of 23 March 2005, available on <www.arbitrage.be> (visited on 8 September 2005).
15 Loi relative aux violations graves du droit international humanitaire, published in Moniteur Belge on 7 August 2003, Ed. 2, N° 286, pp. 40506–40515. This 2003 law repealed the 1993 Law on the repression of serious violations of international humanitarian law (as last amended on 23 April 2003). See National implementation of international humanitarian law — biannual update on national legislation and case law, January-June 2003, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 85, No. 851, September 2003, p. 654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Cour d'arbitrage, Arrêt N° 65/2005, 13 April 2005, available on <www.arbitrage.be> (visited on 8 September 2005).
17 Op. cit. (note 15).
18 Cour de Cassation, 5 May 2005, available on <www.cass.be> (visited on 8 September2005).
19 Article 29, paragraph 3 of the Law relating to serious violations of international humanitarian law, 5 August 2003, op. cit. (note 7).
20 Article 16.2 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951.
21 Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 28 June 2005, SCC 40, available at <http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2005scc040.wpd.html> (visited on 8 September2005).
22 Immigration Act, RSC 1985, c. I–2. (now replaced by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c. 27).
23 27(l)(a.1)(ii) and 27(l)(a.3)(ii) of the Immigration Act.
24 Sections 7(3.76) and 7(3.77) of the Criminal Code have since been repealed. Crimes against humanity are now defined under sections 4 and 6 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, SC 2000, c. 24.
25 ss. 27(l)(g) and 19(1)(j) of the Immigration Act.
26 A first decision of acquittal in the case was issued by the Circuit Military Court for the region of the Southern Caucasus on 11 May 2004, but was repealed by resolution of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 26 August 2004, on the grounds that the jury had been improperly selected. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that the case should be heard again by the same Circuit Court.
27 United States District Court for the District of Columbia Court, Khalid v. Bush, Civil Action No. 2004–1142, Memorandum Opinion & Order, 19 January 2005, by Judge Richard J. Leon, available at <http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/opinions/2005/Leon/2004-CV-1142∼7:40:40∼3–2–2005-a.pdf> (visited on 8 September 2005).
28 US Supreme Court, Rasul v. Bush, No. 03–334. The Supreme Court held that foreign nationals imprisoned without charge at the Guantanamo Bay interrogation camps were entitled to bring legal action challenging their captivity in US civilian federal courts.
29 US Supreme Court, Hamdi et al. v. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et. al., No. 03–6696, 28 June 2004, see also National Implementation of international humanitarian law — biannual update on national legislation and case law, January-June 2004, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 86, No. 855, September 2004, p. 705.
30 United States District Court for the District of Columbia Court, In re Guantanamo Detainees Cases, Civil Action No. 2002–0299, Memorandum Opinion issued January 31, 2005, Order issued January 31, 2005, available at <http://www.dcd.uscourts.gOv/opinions/2005/Green/2002-CV-299∼8:57:59∼3–2–2005-a.pdf> (visited on 8 September 2005).
31 United States District Court for the District of Columbia Court, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Civil Action No. 04–1519 (JR), 8 November 2004, see also National Implementation of International Humanitarian Law — biannual update on national legislation and case law, July-December 2004, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 87, No. 857, March 2005, p. 225.
32 The latter decisions are manifest of a split in opinion among the judges of the US District Court for the District Court of Columbia, which by 30 June 2005, remained to be resolved before a Federal Court of Appeals and eventually before the US Supreme Court. On 15 July 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the Hamdan Case, which will be commented in the next Biannual update on national legislation and case law to be published in this Review for the period July–December 2005.