S.ND.

T WOMEN’S UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL

SATACRUZE-W

SUBJECT: INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN AND

REFUGEE LAW

ASSIGNMENT TOPIC: GENEVA CONVENTION 3 AND

ITS EFFICACY

ACADAMIC YEAR: 2021-2022.

SUBMITTED TO: DR. ANITA DUBEY

SUBMITTED BY: SHIVANI JITENDRA KAMBLE

LL.M 2ND YEAR, 3RD SEMESTER

GROUP- HUMAN RIGHTS

ROLL NO: 05

1
 INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION
2. CAPTURE OF IFS OFFICER – WITH RESPECT TO
POW – GENEVAL CONVENTION
3. PRISONERS OF WAR
4. DEFINITION OF PRISONERS OF WAR
4.1GRANTING PRISONERS OF WAR STATUS
4.2 PRESUMPTIONS AND CONTROL BY
COMPETENT TRIBUNAL
4.3 NON APPLICATION OF POW STATUS
5. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS SET UP BY THE
THIRD GENEVA CONVENTION

6. WHAT IS PROHIBITED UNDER THE CONVENTION

7. CONCLUSION

2
1, INTRODUCTION

"The law of war forbids the wounding, killing, impressing into the
troops of the country, or enslaving or otherwise maltreating the
prisoners of war unless they have been guilty of some grave crime,
and from the obligations of this law no civilized state can discharge
itself." ...Daniel Webster, 1842 "Prisoners of war" (POWs) are
combatants who have fallen into the hands of the enemy, or
particularly non-combatants to whom the status of prisoner of war
is granted by international humanitarian law. In light of the recent
incident of Wg.Cdr. Abhinandan, the million dollar question was
what happens to a soldier if he lands in a hostile territory during
war or an armed conflict? Whether the belligerent is bound to
afford him protection under the obligations of International law?
The answer is in affirmative in as much as the protection afforded
to a prisoner of war emanates from the "Geneva Convention
relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1929" which was
subsequently revised and amended in the year 1949. It caters
humanitarian protection & treatment for prisoners of war. The soi-
disant humane treatment of prisoners of war has always been a true
myth, at least to the ancient soldiers. Conventionally, any alive
soldier was not taken as a prisoner due to the apprehension that he
may have to be fed and taken care of by the domain affording
protection to him and the burden of protecting him will come upon

3
them. Also there will be chances of his escape and return to the
battlefield. Thus, with the advent of time and under international
obligations through treaties and conventions, equitable and
compassionate treatment of prisoners of war during war or an
armed conflict became a sine qua non for the belligerents.

2. CAPTURE OF IFS OFFICER- WING CDR

ABHINANDAN- WITH RESPECT O PRIOSNERS OF WAR-
GENEVA CONVENTION

What is the issue?

Indian Air Force pilot, Wing Commander Abhinandan

Varthaman, was captured by Pakistan after a major
aerial confrontation.
It is imperative, in this context, to understand the
provisions in Geneva Conventions on treatment of
prisoners of war (PoWs).

What happened?

The aerial confrontation began after Pakistan sent several

aircrafts to the Line of Control (LoC) in retaliation for the
Indian Air Force's Balakot strike on JeM camp.
The Indian government said that IAF jets shot down an
F-16 jet of the Pakistan Air Force.
However, Pakistan’s military denied the loss of any
aircraft.
Wing Commander Abhinandan had to eject over the
LoC after his MiG-21 was shot by a Pakistani plane.
He then eventually landed in Pakistan-occupied
Kashmir and was taken into custody by the Pakistan

4
 Army.
The Ministry of External Affairs works through
diplomatic and official channels and demands the safe
and immediate return of the Indian pilot.
Meanwhile, various amateur videos were on
circulation in which Wing Commander Abhinandan
was seen being manhandled by a crowd in PoK. India
strongly objected to Pakistan’s vulgar display of an
injured personnel, in violation of norms of International
Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions.

PoWs are usually members of the armed forces of one of

the parties to a conflict who fall into the hands of the
adverse party.
Article 3 of the Geneva Convention on Treatment of
PoWs deals with every kind of situation that may arise
for a captive and captor.
All countries are signatories to the Geneva Conventions.
Authority - The Geneva Conventions have a system of
“Protecting Powers” who ensure that the provisions are
being followed by the parties.
In theory, each side must designate states that are not
party to the conflict as their “Protecting Powers”.
In practice, the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC) has been mandated under the conventions to
ensure the application of the law.
ICRC visits prisoners, both military and civilian

Is the convention applicable in the present conflict?

Both India and Pakistan have been careful not to term

the confrontation a war.
India has specifically said that its airstrikes were a

5
 “non-military” intelligence-led operation.
Nevertheless, both sides are bound by the
Geneva Conventions. As, the provisions of
the conventions apply at the following
times:
i. in peacetime situations
ii. in declared wars
iii. in conflicts that are not recognised as war by one or
more of the parties
This means the IAF officer is a prisoner of war, and
his treatment has to be in accordance with the
provisions for PoWs under the Geneva Conventions.

3. Prisoners of War
 A combatant who falls into the hands of an adverse party to
a conflict in the course of an international armed conflict is a
prisoner of war. Individuals who fall into the hands of the
enemy during an armed conflict are protected under
humanitarian law. If the individual is a combatant, he or she
is accorded protection as a prisoner of war. If the individual
is a civilian, he or she is protected as such. As explained in
the ICRC Commentary on the Geneva Conventions:
“nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.” 1.
 The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 specifically regulates
the treatment of prisoners of war, the definition of which is

6
 derived from the definition of combatant (GCI–III).
Civilians who participate in the hostilities also benefit from
guarantees of treatment in international and non-
international armed conflicts (GCIV). In non-international
armed conflicts, the combatant status is not officially
recognized for members of non-state armed groups.
Humanitarian law applicable to non-international armed
conflicts provides, however, a specific regime of protection
for persons deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the
conflict. This status of detention applies at a minimum to
combatants who fight within non-state armed groups in non-
international armed conflicts.
 The treatment provided for prisoners of war can always be
granted by the detaining power to detainees who do not meet
the criteria and conditions set up by the Third Convention. It
can also be partially applied by way of Special Agreement in
situations that do not amount to an international armed
conflict. 1. The Additional Protocol to the Geneva
Conventions Relating to the Protection of Victims of
International Armed Conflicts (Additional Protocol I),
adopted in 1977, takes a different approach to the question
of prisoners of war. It enumerates the categories of persons
who must be protected under the status of prisoners of war if
captured by an adverse party. The goal is to ensure that
individuals are not denied this status if an authority chooses
an excessively restrictive interpretation of the Third Geneva

7
 Convention definition. Additional Protocol I also establishes
guarantees to prevent the status from being denied to a
person who is entitled to it.
 During an armed conflict, an individual who directly
participates in the hostilities and falls into the hands of the
enemy will enjoy protection under the Third Convention
until such time that his or her status is determined by a
competent independent and impartial tribunal, according to
the rule of law (GCIII Art. 5, API Art. 45).
 These texts regulate the conditions for the detention of
prisoners of war (housing, food, hygiene and medical care,
religion, physical and intellectual activities, discipline,
transfer, work, correspondence, money). Prisoner-of-war
status entails certain fundamental guarantees in the case of
disciplinary and penal sanctions.
 This status takes into account the fact that combatants have a
legitimate right to use violence, until they are captured. It
tries to ascertain that capture and detention are not used as
an occasion for revenge, ill treatment, or torture of prisoners
of war to obtain information. Prisoners of war may be
questioned; however, no physical or mental torture, nor any
other form of coercion, may be inflicted on them to secure
information of any kind. Prisoner-of-war status also prevents
prisoners from being prosecuted and sentenced solely for
having taken part in a conflict.

8
  Where combatants have violated humanitarian law—
including perpetration of terrorist acts—they may not be
deprived of prisoner-of-war status but may be prosecuted for
crimes committed according to the rule of law and judicial
guarantees recognized by humanitarian law. Offenses
punishable by the death penalty are limited.

 In 1977, the definition of a prisoner of war that had been

established in 1949 was expanded to take into consideration
the evolving notion of “combatants,” tied to new military
techniques. Under the new definition, prisoner-of-war status
is no longer reserved exclusively for combatants who are
members of the armed forces: it may also be granted to
civilians who are members of resistance movements and to
participants in popular uprisings.

 The category of “unlawful combatants” used by certain

countries denies protections that prisoners of war normally
enjoy and has no legal basis in humanitarian law. Even if a
combatant has committed grave violations of humanitarian
law, he or she may not be deprived of prisoner-of-war status
and the protections granted by this status. Determination of
combatant and prisoner-of-war status must comply with
criteria and procedures set by humanitarian law.

The definition of a prisoner of war is rarely applicable to internal

armed conflicts. However, the Additional Protocol to the Geneva

9
Conventions Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-
international Armed Conflicts (Additional Protocol II) establishes
specific provisions and guarantees of treatment for persons
detained for reasons related to a conflict (APII Art. 5)

4. Definition of Prisoners of War (Third 1949 Geneva

Convention

The Third Geneva Convention defines the categories of persons

who are entitled to prisoners of war status:

Prisoners of war . . . are persons belonging to one of the following

categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

—Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as

members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed
forces.

—Members of other militias and members of other volunteer

corps, including those of organized resistance movements,
belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their
own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that [they]
fulfill the following conditions:

1. that of being commanded by a person responsible for his

subordinates;

2. that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a

distance;

10
3. that of carrying arms openly;

4. that of conducting their operations in accordance with the

laws and customs of war

—Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a

government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

—Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually

being members thereof, such as civilian members of military
aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of
labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed
forces, provided that they have received authorization from the
armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for
that purpose with an identity card.

. . . —Members of crews, including masters, pilots and

apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft
of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more
favourable treatment under any other provisions of international
law.

—Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of

the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces,
without having had time to form themselves into regular armed
units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and
customs of war. (GCIV Art. 4.A)

The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under

the present Convention:

11
—Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of
the occupying country, if the Occupying Power considers it
necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though
it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on
outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons
have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to
which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they
fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to
internment.

—The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in

the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-
belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are
required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any
more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give.
. . . (GCIII Art. 4.B)

The 1977 Additional Protocol I expanded the definition of a

prisoner of war to take into consideration the evolving notion of
“combatants,” tied to new military techniques. Under the new
definition, prisoner-of-war status may also be granted to armed
groups that do not formally belong to regular armed forces (API
Arts. 43, 44) and to those—including civilians—who take part in
the conflict. The extended definition of armed forces and
combatant includes:

The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized

armed forces, groups and units which are under a command

12
responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if
that Party is represented by a government or an authority not
recognized by an adverse Party.

Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary

system which, inter alia , shall enforce compliance with the rules of
international law applicable in armed conflict.

Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than

medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third
Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to
participate directly in hostilities. (API Art. 43)

According to the 1977 Additional Protocol I, the status of prisoner

of war is linked with the objective criteria based on direct
participation in the conflict, rather that legal criteria based on the
formal belonging to armed forces. Therefore, both combatants and
civilians directly taking part in a conflict may claim prisoner-of-
war status and the protection attached to it.

A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an
adverse party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war. The
individual will be afforded protection under the Third Convention
if he claims the status of prisoner of war, if he appears to be
entitled to such status, or if the party on which he depends claims
such status on his behalf by notifying the detaining Power or the
Protecting Power [ICRC]. Should any doubt arise as to whether
any such person is entitled to prisoner-of-war status, he shall

13
continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the
Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has
been determined by a competent tribunal. (API Art. 45.1)

Therefore, the category of “unlawful combatants” used to prevent

some combatants from enjoying the status or the protection to
afforded prisoners has no legal basis in humanitarian law since the
1977 Additional Protocols. Humanitarian law creates a framework
that sets up procedural guarantees used when deciding whether a
person should qualify as a civilian or a combatant, and whether he
or she should enjoy the status of prisoner of war.

Granting Prisoners of War Status (Additional Protocol I)

A certain number of guarantees are foreseen to regulate which

persons—either combatants or civilians—are granted the status of
prisoner of war. This prevents the detaining power from being able
to discretionarily decide on the status of the prisoner. Further
guarantees grant the protection afforded to prisoners of war even to
those who may not directly enjoy the prisoner-of-war status.

Presumption and Control by a Competent Tribunal

 Any person who falls into the power of an adverse party

shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war. In order to prevent
challenges to whether a combatant belongs to the armed
forces, Additional Protocol I expands the application of this
principle. Prisoner-of-war status is granted both to groups of
armed forces and to anybody taking part in the hostilities.

14
 The Third Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I
stipulate that where doubt arises as to whether somebody is
entitled to the status of prisoner of war, status shall be
determined by a competent tribunal, and not by the detaining
power. Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having
committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands
of the enemy, belong to any of the categories of combatant
(enumerated in GCIII Art. 4), such persons shall enjoy the
protection of the present Convention until such time as their
status has been determined by a competent tribunal (GCIII
Art. 5).
 A person who takes part in the hostilities and falls into the
hands of the adverse party is presumed to be a prisoner of
war if he claims the status of prisoner of war or if he appears
to be entitled to such status or if the party on which he
depends claims such status on his behalf by notifying the
detaining power or the protecting power (ICRC).

 Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is

entitled to prisoner-of-war status, he shall continue to have
such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third
Convention and Additional Protocol I until such time as his
status has been determined by a competent tribunal (API Art.
45.1).In such situations, protection of an individual is
strengthened; according to Additional Protocol I, where the
detained person claims such status, a competent tribunal

15
 decides, and the procedures may be controlled, in particular
by the ICRC. This measure is crucial as it protects civilians
from being subject to improper criminal prosecution by the
detaining power, as a result of having taken part directly in
the hostilities.

 If a person who has fallen into the power of an adverse party

is not held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried by that
party for an offense arising out of the hostilities, he shall
have the right to assert his entitlement to prisoner-of-war
status before a judicial tribunal and to have that question
adjudicated. Whenever possible under the applicable
procedure, this adjudication shall occur before the trial for
the offense.

 The representatives of the ICRC shall be entitled to attend

the proceedings in which that question is adjudicated (API
Art. 45.2). ▸ Death penalty; (/content/article/3/death-penalty)
▸ Judicial guarantees (/content/article/3/judicial-guarantees)
▸ Occupied territory (/content/article/3/occupiedterritory)
Civilians who take direct part in the hostilities and for such
time as they take a direct part in hostilities are not afforded
the protection humanitarian law normally grants to civilians
(API Art. 51, APII Art. 13.3).

16
 As noted previously, they may be granted prisoner-of-war
status under certain circumstances (API Art. 45.1–3). This
means that the detaining power must prove before a
competent tribunal that an individual may not benefit from
this status. Persons not granted combatant or prisoner-of-war
status will be treated as civilians. As a minimum, they will
be afforded fundamental guarantees if detained, and due
process of law will apply if they have to be prosecuted for
violations of humanitarian law.

 Children, even if they are combatants, remain protected by

the special provisions foreseen for them by humanitarian
law, whether or not they are prisoners of war (API Art. 77).

4.3 Nonapplication of the Prisoner ofWar Status

 Some wrongly claim that where armed groups have

violated humanitarian law, they may be deprived of
combatant or prisoner-of-war status. According to the
Geneva Conventions, members of armed forces must be
under responsible command that is able to comply with
obligations under humanitarian law.
 However, this does not impact the prisoner-of-war status
of those who have taken part in hostilities. Additional
Protocol I made this point clear. A combatant’s failure to

17
 respect the rules of international law applicable to armed
conflicts may not deprive that person of his or her status
as a prisoner of war (API Art. 44.2). A prisoner may be
prosecuted for violations of humanitarian law while
maintaining his or her rights as a prisoner of war,
including judicial guarantees.
 The distinction between civilians and combatants is the
core element of the protection granted to civilians under
humanitarian law. Therefore, the Geneva Conventions
insist that combatants are obliged to distinguish
themselves from the civilian population and must carry
their arms openly.

 A combatant who fails to meet the requirement to

distinguish himself from civilians and who falls into the
power of an adverse party forfeits his right to be a
prisoner of war (API Art. 44.4). Additional Protocol I
weakened the obligation for combatants to distinguish
themselves as it recognizes that there are situations in
armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the
hostilities, an armed combatant may be unable to
adequately distinguish himself. Therefore, such
obligation does not include the duty to wear uniform and
distinct insignias; it may be enough to openly carry arms
when engaged in a military operation.

18
 However, this article stipulates that, even when denied
prisoner-of-war status, the combatant continues to enjoy
protection equivalent to that granted to prisoners of war
by Geneva Convention III and Additional Protocol I.
Again, it is up to a competent tribunal to assess the
situation and decide on the status, not to the detaining
power.

 The difference between prisoner-of-war status and being

treated as a prisoner of war implies that an individual
who has used force without acting openly as a combatant
may be prosecuted according to the domestic law of the
detaining power for this fact. However, this person will
enjoy the protections the Third Geneva Convention
normally grants to prisoners of war, particularly with
regard to judicial guarantees.

 Mercenaries enjoy neither combatant nor prisoner-of-war

status (API Art. 47). The 1977 Additional Protocol I
strictly defines mercenaries. This definition does not
include foreigners who voluntarily take up arms to join
combats and organized militias linked with the armed
forces of a party to the conflict. These foreign volunteers
should be granted prisoner-of-war status and have access

19
 to a tribunal to decide on their status, regardless of their
nationality.

5. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS SET UP BY THIRD

GENEVA CONVENTION :

 Prisoners of war must be treated humanely at all times. Any

unlawful act or omission by the detaining power causing
death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of
war in its custody is prohibited and will be considered a
serious breach of humanitarian law (GCIII Art. 13).

 Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect

for their person. Women must be treated with due regard to
their specific needs and must benefit from treatment as
favorable as that granted to men (GCIII Art. 14). ▸ Women
(/content/article/3/women)

 The detaining power is bound to provide prisoners of war,

free of charge, with the necessary maintenance and medical
attention required by their state of health (GCIII Art. 15).
 All prisoners of war must be treated alike by the detaining
power (GCIII Art. 16). Prisoners are only under obligation to
give their last and first names, rank, date of birth, and serial
number. Each party to a conflict is required to furnish each

20
 prisoner of war under its jurisdiction with an identity card.
Questioning is not prohibited, but the Third Convention
stipulates that no physical or mental torture, or any other
form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to
secure from them information of any kind whatever.
Prisoners of war who refuse to answer when questioned may
not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or
disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

 The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a

language they understand (GCIII Art. 17). 10/14/22, 10:18
AM Doctors without borders | .

 Prisoners of war may not be deprived of their personal

belongings (GCIII Art. 18).

 Prisoners of war must be evacuated, as soon as possible

after their capture, to camps situated away from the combat
zones. Such evacuation must be carried out humanely and in
conditions similar to those for the forces of the detaining
power in their changes of station.

21
 Prisoners of war must be given sufficient food and drinking
water and the necessary clothing and medical attention
(GCIII Arts. 19, 20).

 Premises of internment must provide every guarantee of

hygiene and healthfulness and take into account the climate
in the area (GCIII Art. 22). Prisoner of war camps must be
clearly marked by the letters PW or PG (for prisoners of war
or prisonniers de guerre ), whenever military considerations
so permit (GCIII Art. 23).

 Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as

favorable as those for the forces of the detaining power who
are quartered in the same area. The said conditions must in
no case be prejudicial to their health.

 The premises must be entirely protected from dampness and

adequately heated and lighted (GCIII Art. 25). The basic
daily food rations must be sufficient in quantity, quality, and
variety to keep prisoners of war in good health and to
prevent weight loss or the development of nutritional
deficiencies.

22
 The habitual diet of the prisoners must also be taken into
account (GCIII Art. 26). The detaining power is bound to
take all necessary sanitary measures to ensure the cleanliness
and healthfulness of camps and to prevent epidemics. In any
camps in which female prisoners of war are accommodated,
separate conveniences shall be provided for them (GCIII Art.
29).

 Every camp must have a satisfactory infirmary. Prisoners of

war shall receive medical attention, preferably from medical
personnel of the power on which they depend and, if
possible, of their nationality. Prisoners of war suffering from
serious diseases or whose condition necessitates special
treatment must be admitted to any military or civilian
medical unit where such treatment can be given. Medical
inspections of prisoners of war are to be held at least once a
month. They shall include checking and recording the
weight of each prisoner and his or her general state of health,
nutrition, and cleanliness (GCIII Arts. 30 and 31).

 Members of the medical personnel and chaplains held by the

detaining power with a view to assisting prisoners of war
shall not be considered prisoners of war. They shall,
however, receive as a minimum the benefits and protection

23
 of the Third Convention and shall be given all facilities
necessary to carry out their work (GCIII Art. 33).

 Prisoners of war shall enjoy complete latitude in the exercise

of their religion and in the practice of sports and intellectual
activities (GCIII Arts. 34–38).

 Every camp shall be put under the immediate authority of a

responsible commissioned officer belonging to the regular
armed forces of the detaining power. This officer must know
and implement the provisions of the Third Geneva
Convention. Any regulations relating to the conduct of
prisoners—including the text of the Convention—shall be
posted in the camp, in a language the prisoners of war
understand (GCIII Arts. 39–42).

 The detaining power may hire the prisoners of war as

workers, taking into account their state of health, as well as
their age, sex, and rank, and only for work that is not for
military purposes. 10/14/22, 10:18 AM Doctors without
borders | .

 Non-commissioned officers shall only be required to do

supervisory work. Prisoners of war may not be forced to do

24
 dangerous or humiliating work, and their labor must be paid
(GCIII Arts. 49–57).

 The management and transfer of prisoners of war’s financial

resources are precisely regulated by Articles 58 to 68.

 Prisoners’ relations with the exterior are regulated by

Articles 69 to 77. The provisions include the fact that the
detaining power must notify the authorities on which the
prisoners depend of the capture, and it must allow the
prisoners to receive and send letters—two to four per month,
depending on the model card used.

 Prisoners are also allowed to receive individual parcels or

collective shipments containing, in particular, foodstuffs,
clothing, medical supplies, and articles of a religious,
educational, or recreational character, under the ICRC’s
supervision.

 Prisoners of war have the right to make requests to the

military authorities in whose power they are, regarding their
conditions of captivity (GCIII Art. 78). Articles 82 to 108
enumerate the penal and disciplinary sanctions:

25
6. WHAT IS PROHIBITED UNDER THE CONVENTION :

According to the provisions, the nations should avoid the

following acts:

i. Violence to life and person, in particular, murder of all

kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture
ii. taking of hostages
iii. outrages upon personal dignity, in particular,
humiliating and degrading treatment
iv. the passing of sentences and the carrying out of
executions without previous judgment pronounced by a
regularly constituted court
Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining
Power causing death or seriously endangering the health
of a prisoner of war is prohibited.
It will be regarded as a serious breach of the present
Convention. Particularly, physical mutilation or
medical/scientific experiments which are not justified
medically and not in PoW's interest are prohibited.
Likewise, PoWs must at all times be protected,
particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and
against insults and public curiosity.
Any acts of vengeance against prisoners of war are
prohibited as per Article 13 of the Convention.
The responsibility for the "humane" treatment of PoWs

26
lies with the detaining power, and not just the individuals
who captured the PoW

7. CONCLUSION :

"The only licit end that a State may have in war is at most to
weaken the military strength of the enemy. The laws of war do not
recognize any belligerent an unlimited liberty to inflict injuries
upon the enemy. They are to abstain especially from all needless
barbarity, as well as from all traitorous, unjust, or tyrannical acts."
In ancient times the concept of "prisoner of war" was unknown and
the defeated became the victor's "chattel". During the middle ages;
it became customary to free captives upon payment of a ransom but
these practices were discarded in modem times. Traditionally,
soldiers in the battlefield are not subject to human rights
considerations. But keeping in view the horrors of world wars of
the twentieth century, it was time for taking enemy soldiers alive
and keeping them as housed prisoners of war. Also, affording them
just and fair treatment & protection became an obligation under
International Humanitarian Law. The Third Geneva Convention
provides a wide range of protection for prisoners of war. It defines
their rights and sets down detailed rules for their treatment and
eventual release. In view of the safeguards bestowed upon the
prisoners of war under the Third Geneva Convention and due to the
insurmountable diplomatic and international pressure exerted upon

27
Pakistan, Wg. Cdr. Abhinandan was released from captivity within
two days.

28