164 Yadanabon University Research Journal 2022, Vol.12 , No.

Protection of Prisoner of War under International Humanitarian Law

Abstract
International humanitarian law is part of international law concerning the protection of
injured parties of war. The law which protects them during war has been developed, revised
and codified in the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949. These Conventions adopted to protect
and treat humanely the specific category of persons who are not, or no longer take active
part in armed conflict. The third Geneva Convention widely protected prisoners of war
against conducts of violence and torture. According to International Humanitarian Law,
prisoners of war are members of the armed forces or one of the parties to the conflict who
are captured by enemy party during armed conflict. The Third Geneva Convention contains
many provisions for the treatment of prisoners of war. It also gives legal guarantee for
prisoners of war when they are captured. This Convention forbids prisoner of war killing,
cruel treatment or torture. In addition, the State capturing prisoner of war is responsible for
giving them medical treatment if necessary and accommodation. Thus, the prisoner of war
should have the right to entitle adequate treatment during captivity. Parties to the conflict
should repatriate prisoners of war without delay as soon as possible under third Geneva
Convention.
Key words: protect, humanitarian, prisoner, conflict, legal guarantee, treatment,
accommodation, captivity

Introduction
International humanitarian law often referred to as the laws of war, the laws and custom
of war or the law of armed conflict, is comprised of the Geneva Conventions and the Hague
Conventions, as well as subsequent treaties. The law of Geneva is governed to safeguard military
personnel who are no longer taking part in the fighting and people not actively involved in
hostilities. The law of Hague establishes the right and obligations of belligerents in the conduct of
military operations. International Humanitarian Law intended to protect war victims and their
fundamental rights, no matter to which party they belong.
Nowadays, there are growing numbers of violence on prisoners of war, and breaches of
international humanitarian law in situations of armed conflicts. The aim of this paper is to present
modern developments and future challenges on the use of international humanitarian law in the
interpretation of national law and practice for the protection of victims of armed conflict. Only by


Professor, Dr, Head of the Department of Law, Yadanabon University

Associate Professor, Department of Law, Yadanabon University
 Yadanabon University Research Journal 2022, Vol.12 , No.1 165

effective action at the national level, it will be possible to ensure full respect for the international
humanitarian law.
Research Objectives
The objectives of research paper are to point out that the international humanitarian law
should be fully respected by the respective parties in armed conflicts and to understand and
distinct internal armed conflict and internal disturbances such as riots or acts of banditry.
Research Method
This research paper analyzed the international legal norms and conventions. It also cited
the textbooks and other materials published by scholars.
1. International Humanitarian Law and Prisoner of War
International humanitarian law (IHL) is also called the law of armed conflict or law of war
which protects the victims against the consequences of war. It includes rules on the act of hostilities
and related issues which arising out of the protection to prisoners of war and civilians not involved
in the fighting. The nature of international humanitarian law is to minimize the suffering in armed
conflict and to mitigate its effects.
A prisoner of war is a combatant but he is not, or is no longer taking part in hostilities aas
well as those who are captured by belligerent during armed conflict.
1.1 Application of International Humanitarian Law
The rules of international humanitarian law also known as the international rules apply to
situations of armed conflicts either international or non-international armed conflicts. Therefore, it
should be studied what armed conflict is and in which situations of international or non-
international armed conflict the international humanitarian law is applied.
Wars between two or more States are considered international armed conflicts, and military
operations occurring on the boundary of only one State are non-international or internal armed
conflicts also known as civil wars.1
With respect to non-international armed conflicts, significant development took place from
the early 1990s on wards. Before the mid-twentieth country, the international agreements
governing the international humanitarian law applied only to international armed conflicts
between States and had no formal bearing on non-international armed conflicts. However, a
number of legal writers advocated that essential principles of the law of war should be applied in
internal armed conflicts or civil wars. Certain international agreements adopted since the mid-
twentieth century, which provides that certain fundamental humanitarian principles applicable in
non-international armed conflicts.2

1
Hans-Peter Gasser, International Humanitarian Law, Henry Dunant Institute, 1993, p.21
2
Roberts, Adam and Richard Guelff, Documents on the Laws of War, 3rd edition, 2000,p.22
166 Yadanabon University Research Journal 2022, Vol.12 , No.1

The first and perhaps most important of these agreement are the four 1949 Geneva
Conventions. Common Article 3 is of the four Geneva Conventions 1949 and has some rather
inadequate humanitarian principles applicable to armed conflict not of an international character.1
The 1954 Hague Cultural Property Convention provides for the application, in a non-
international armed conflict, of at least those provisions of the Convention which relate to respect
for cultural property. Again, the application of this Article depends upon the existence of an armed
conflict.2
The 1977 Geneva Protocol II relating to non-international armed conflicts is intended to
develop and supplement common Article 3 in respect of armed conflicts within a state between its
forces and dissident forces or other organized armed groups.3
In the sphere of humanitarian law, this can be seen the gradual application of humanitarian
rules to internal armed conflicts. The key modern decision has been the Tadic case before the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
In Tadic case,4 the accused, Dusko Tadic is a citizen of the former Yugoslavia. He committed
various atrocities on the territory of Bosnia Muslims. In 1994, Dusko Tadic was arrested in Germany
and transferred to the Hague. The Accused was charged with 31 individual counts of various
actrocities. In all cases the Accused was charged with individual criminal responsibility. In 1995,
the ICTY Appeals Chamber delivered a landmark decision on Dusko Tadic’s interlocutory appeal on
jurisdiction. The Chamber find that, by a majority, charges in 11 counts declared in applicable;
unanimously, that the Accused is not guilty on 9 counts of murder and unanimously that the
accused is guilty on 11 counts of persecution and beatings. Therefore, out of 31 counts, the Accused
has been found: not guilty on 20 counts (9 murder counts because insufficient evidence and 11
counts declared in applicable), and quality on 11 counts (persecution and beating).
The Appeals chamber in the jurisdictional phrase of the case noted that an armed conflict
existed whenever there was a resort to armed force between States or pretracted armed violence
between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a
State. International humanitarian law applied from the initiation of such armed conflicts and
extended beyond the cessation of hostilities until a general conclusion of peace was reached, or,
in case of internal conflicts, a peaceful settlement achieved. Until that moment, international
humanitarian law continued to apply in the whole territory of the warring states or, in the case of
internal conflicts, the whole territory under the conflicts, the whole territory under the control of a

1
Anthony Aust, Handbook of International Law, Cambridge University, 2005, p.258
2
Article 19 of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict,
1954
3
Anthony Aust, Handbook of International Law, Cambridge University, 2005, p.25
4
Tadic case, No, IT -94-1-AR 72,2 October, 1995
 Yadanabon University Research Journal 2022, Vol.12 , No.1 167

party, whether or not actual combat takes place there. The distinction between international and
non-international armed conflicts was thus minimized.1
International humanitarian law does not apply to situations of violence not amounting in
intensity to an armed conflict.2 That law ceases to have any effect when the armed conflict is over,
that is to say, the individual convention ceases to be applicable once there are no pending issues
realign to its subject matter and all the humanitarian problems it encompasses have been resolved.
In practical terms, this means that all prisoners of war have been repatriated, all civilian internees
set free and all occupied territories liberated.3
Therefore, international humanitarian law applies to situations of violence amounting to
armed conflict, either international or non-international. This law applies from the initiation of such
armed conflicts and extends beyond the cessation of hostilities until the peaceful condition is
reached. If the situation of violence is not amounting in seriously to an armed conflict, such as
internal disturbances and riots or acts of banditry, the humanitarian law does not apply in this
situation.
1.2 Prisoner of War under Geneva Convention
Prisoners of war are those who are into the hands of the other party during international
armed conflict and combatant of the either party to the conflict.
According to the third Geneva Convention, prisoners of war are persons those who have
fallen into the power of the enemy and also belong to one of the following categories; (a) they
must be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) they must have a fixed
distinctive sign which is recognizable at a distance (if they have no uniform of their own); (c) they
must carry arms openly; (d) they must respect the law and customs of war.4
Certain persons authorized to accompany the armed forces without belonging to them are
also to be treated as prisoners of war, e.g. civilian members of ship and aircraft crews, war
correspondents, though not those journalists who are to be treated as civilians under Protocol I.
Lastly, members of the population who spontaneously take up arms to resist approaching enemy
forces are entitled to be treated as prisoners of war.5
The concept of prisoner of war includes all members of the armed forces of a party to the
conflict and also all members of armed groups and units which are under a command responsible
to that party.6

1
Shaw, Malcom N., International Law, Cambridge University, 6th Edition, 2008, p.435
2
International Humanitarian Law, ICRC, Geneva, 2002, p.17
3
Hans-Peter Gasser, International Humanitarian Law, Henry Dunant Institute, 1993, p. 23
4
Article 4 A(2) of the Third Geneva Convention, 1949
5
Article 4.A of the Third Geneva Convention, 1949
6
Article 43,44 of the Protocol I of Geneva Conventions, 1949
168 Yadanabon University Research Journal 2022, Vol.12 , No.1

The head of the State who is Commander in Chief of his nation’s forces becomes a prisoner
of war if he falls into the enemy hands. Diplomatic representatives of the adverse party must not
be made prisoners of war, but allowed to return to their own country.1
Spies and mercenaries have no right whatsoever to the status of prisoners of war when
captured. They benefit from minimum guarantee of humane treatment.2
In Public Prosecutor Vs. Oie Hee Koi and connected appeals3, in the Context of the
confrontation between Malaysia and Indonesia, twelve paratroopers under the command of
Indonesia officers were captured in Malaysia, convicted of offences relating to firearms,
ammunitions and explosives under section 57 and 58 of the Internal Security Act of 1960 and
sentenced to death. The accused were allegedly Chinese Malays either born or settled in Malaysia.
Although their nationality was not formally established, most carried identity cards normally issued
to Malaysian citizens. On appeal, most of the convictions were upheld, except for two cases, in
both of which the Federal Court considered that the accused were prisoners of war within the
meaning of Malaysia’s Conventions Act of 1962, and as such entitled to the protection of the Third
Geneva Convention. The Prosecutor appealed against this ruling and the other ten accused against
the finding by the federal Court that they were not entitled to prisoners of war status.
After nothing that the Geneva Convention Act did not indicated whether status of prisoner
of war covered nationals of, or persons owing allegiance to, the captor State, the judicial
Committee found that close examination of the Third Geneva Convention and commonly accepted
international law strongly indicated that a prisoner of war was not a national of detaining power.
It therefore concluded that the Convention did not extend the protection of prisoners of war to
nationals, owed allegiance to that power. Further, as none of the accused except one claimed
protection under the Convention the Committee held that there was nothing to show that the
accused were prisoners of war or cost doubt on their status. The fact that they landed as part of
the Indonesian armed forces was no sufficient to raise any such doubt. It was for the accrued, and
not for the prosecution, to raise any such doubt before or at the trail. Accordingly, this basis for
appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the nationals of the detaining power cannot entitle the status of
prisoner of war.
Any member if the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who fails into the power of an
adverse Party while engaging in espionage shall not have the right to the status of prisoner of war
and may be treated as a spy. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who, on
behalf of that Party and in territory controlled by an adverse Party, gathers or attempts to gather

1
L.C Green, the Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict, 1993,p190.
2
Francoise Bory, Origin and Development of International Humanitarian Law, 1982,p.31
3
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council(UK) 4December,1867
 Yadanabon University Research Journal 2022, Vol.12 , No.1 169

information shall not be considered as engaging in espionage if, while so acting, he is in the uniform
of his armed forces.1
Therefore, any member of the armed forces of a party to a conflict is a combatant and any
combatant captured by the adverse party is a prisoner of war.
2. Legal Protection of Prisoners of War
The four common principles to international humanitarian law based on the fundamental
humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality and humanity. Each of them concerns with the
protection of category of persons during and after the armed conflicts.
The First Convention is relating to the care of the wounded and sick members of armed
forces in the field. The Second is the Convention on the care of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked
members of armed forces at sea. The Third Convention is relating to the protection of the treatment
of prisoner of war and the Fourth Convention is on the protection of civilian persons in time of war.
2.1 Treatment of Prisoners of War
In ancient period, the concept of prisoner of war considered as the victor's chattel. The
captive person could be killed or sold and discretion of captor. There was no one help on enemy
prisoners of war.2
Until the second half of the 19th century, international law did not include any multilateral
agreements establishing regulations for prisoner of war. The first Convention on the laws and rules
of land warfare, which established regulations for prisoners of war camps, was adopted in 1899 at
the First Hague Conference. The Second Hague Peace Conference in 1907 worked out a new
Convention on the prisoners of war was accepted. A Geneva Convention on the treatment of
prisoners of war that learned toward more humanitarian regulations of war was worked out and
signed in 1949.3 This Convention includes some new principles- for example, it forbade
discrimination against prisoners of war because of race, color, religion, sex, nationality, or property.
An extremely important innovation was the application of conventions containing regulations for
prisoners of war cramps are Laws and Customs of War on Land and the 1949 Geneva Convention
on the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
The treatment of prisoners of war must be humanitarian and without discrimination in all
situations. The Third Geneva Convention 1949 ensures due respect to female prisoners. Taking the
leaves of prisoners of war, doing them bodily harm (killing, mutilation, cruel treatment, torment,
or torture), or demeaning their dignity by insult and belittling is forbidden. A prisoner of war may

1
Article 46 of the Protocol I of Geneva Conventions, 1949
2
M. Foster Farley, Prisoners for Profit: Ransom,1989,p.12
3
http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/.../chap10eng-asp
170 Yadanabon University Research Journal 2022, Vol.12 , No.1

not be subjected to physical crippling or scientific or medical experimentation unless such action
is warranted as medical treatment.1
The Nazi crimes against Soviet Prisoners of War relate to the deliberately genocidal policy
taken towards the captured soldiers of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany. These efforts resulted
in some 3.3 to 3.5 million deaths, about 60% of all Soviet POWs. During operation Barbarossa, the
Axis invasion of the Soviet Union, and the subsequent German-Soviet War, millions of Red Army
prisoners of war were taken. Some of them were arbitrarily executed on the field by German forces,
died under inhuman conditions in German prisoner of war camps and during rather less death
marches from the front lines, or were shipped to Nazi concentration camps for exterminations.
Some 3.3 million Soviet POWs died in Nazi Custody, out of 5.7 million. This figure represents a total
of 5.7% of all Soviet POWS. Only 5% of the Soviet prisoners who died were of Jewish ethnicity.
Germans killed an estimated 2.8 in what has been called, along with the Rwandan Genocide, an
instance of the most concentrated mass killing in human history.2
After the Second World War, twenty two of the twenty-four German war criminals were
bought before Nuremberg Tribunal for trial. These defends argued first, that the charges against
them, of planning for war, were not proved by way of documents and other types of evidences.
The charge that they tortured over the Soviet Russia could not bring such a charge against them
as she was not a party to the Geneva Convention of 1929 on the basis of which this charge was
framed. Lastly, as war, under International Law, was an act of State, they could not be held guilty
individually. After a long trail, the judgment was delivered on the 30 September, 1955. Two
offenders were acquitted, 10 individuals were convicted of sentenced to death and to life
imprisonment. Those who were sentenced to death were held guilty of war crimes or crime against
humanity. All but four were also convicted of crimes against peace.3
The prisoners of war mean members of the armed forces of a fighting side who are captured
by the enemy in international law. However, prisoners of war may be sometime non-combatants,
such as war correspondents, and members of civil aviation. Whatsoever every prisoners of war
should be entitled to treatment when they are captured in armed conflicts.
The government holding prisoners of war is responsible for supporting them free of charge
and giving them necessary medical attention; the prisoners of war are entitled to food, living
quarters, and clothing similar to those of their captor’s army. All personal belongings of the
prisoners of war except for weapons, military property, and military documents may remain in their
possession. Prisoners of war have complete freedom of religious choice; they are allowed to send

1
Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention, 1949
2
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/../Nazi-crimes-against
3
Mukherjee, Dr, Sobhanlal, International Law,1961,p.334
 Yadanabon University Research Journal 2022, Vol.12 , No.1 171

and receive mail, individual or collective parcel, and money orders.1 Prisoners of war concluding
officers may be employed in activities unrelated to war; they may not be ordered to do work that
is dangerous or threatening to their health without their consent. All work performed by prisoners
of war must be compensated: part of the salary is used for the support of the prisoners, and the
rest is released to him upon his freedom.2
Prisoners of war must obey the laws, statutes, and orders affecting the military bodies of
the government which is holding them captive: if these laws are not obeyed, legal and disciplinary
measures may be taken. They may not be tired or convicted for actions which are not considered
criminal by the government holding them captive, nor may any form of punishment be applied to
them that is not ordinarily applied to any military personnel of the government for similar deeds.
Attempts to escape are punishable only by disciplinary action. All illegal acts, as well as inactivity
on the part of the government holding the prisoners resulting in death or a threat to the health of
prisoners, are forbidden and considered to be in direct violation of the Convention. Persons guilty
of such crimes are subject to legal prosecution as military offenders and are subject to legal
prosecution.3
Since the international humanitarian law has already adequately provided to treat for
prisoners of war, the respective parties to the conflict should abide these provisions of that law.
2.2. Repatriation of Prisoner of War
A very important group of provisions in the Third Geneva Convention is dealing with the
repatriation of prisoners of war. The provisions relating to repatriation provided to the Articles 109
to 119 of the Third Genera Convention.
All prisoners of war are to be released and repatriated immediately after cessation of
hostilities. Parties are to repatriate, regardless of rank or number, all seriously wounded or sick
prisoners when fit to travel and, when possible, agreements should be made between the parties
and with the cooperation of neutrals for the detention of such persons in neutral territory pending
such repatriation, but no sick or wounded person should be repatriated against his wishes during
hostilities.4
The severely wounded and sick must be repatriated directly without delay as soon as they
are fit to travel. This is a humanly conduct towards combatants who will never again be involved
in the war. Mixed medical commissions decide who will be repatriated. ICRC delegates possess the
necessary experience to carry out repatriations of this kind at any time. The unjustified delay of
repatriating prisoners of war is also a grave breach of Geneva Convention. Without waiting for the

1
Article 16 of the Third Geneva Convention, 1949
2
Article 51 of the Third Geneva Convention, 1949
3
Article 93,93 of Third Geneva Convention,1949
4
L.C Green, the Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict, 1993,p.205
172 Yadanabon University Research Journal 2022, Vol.12 , No.1

war to end, the parties to the conflict should repatriate prisoners of war on humanitarian grounds,
possible on a reciprocal basis, i.e., by means of an exchange of prisoners. The ICRC tries constantly
to bring about agreements of this kind as a neutral intermediary to carry out repatriations and
exchanges of POWs.1
Forced repatriation may run counter to human rights considerations or the rights of
refugees, especially if the returning prisoners faces persecution in his own country. This may be
the case, for example, if the political regime has changed since his capture. For if individual
prisoners were allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to return home, the detaining
power would soon claim the right to make its own decisions concerning their repatriation.
The followings shall be repatriated direct under the Third Geneva Convention:2 (1) Incurably
wounded and sick whose mental or physical fitness seems to have been gravely diminished. (2)
Wounded and sick who, according to medical opinion, are not likely to recover within one year,
whose condition requires treatment and whose mental or physical fitness seems to have been
gravely diminished. (3) Wounded and sick who have recovered, but whose mental or physical
fitness seem to have been gravely and permanently diminished.
The following may be accommodated in a neutral country: (1) Wounded and sick whose
recovery may be expected within one year of the date of the wound or the beginning of the illness,
if treatment in a neutral country might increase the prospects of a more certain and speedy
recovery. (2) Prisoners of war whose mental or physical health, according to medical opinion, is
seriously threatened by continued captivity, but whose accommodation in a neutral country might
remove such a threat.
In general, prisoners of war who have been accommodated in a neutral country, and who
belong to the following categories, should be repatriated.
(1) Those whose state of health has deteriorated so as to fulfill the conditions laid down for direct
repatriation.
(2) Those whose mental or physical powers remain, even after treatment, considerably impaired.
Therefore, parties to the conflict should repatriate prisoners of war without delay by means
of an exchange of prisoners and if necessary, shall endeavor to make arrangements for the
accommodation in neutral countries.
2.3 Controlling Prisoner of War
During captivity it is necessary to know which law the prisoners of war must obey, how to
proceed the prisoners of war when they committed offences during captivity and which
punishments give them.

1
Hans-Peter Gasser, International Humanitarian Law, Henry Dunant Institute, 1993, p. 38
2
Article 110 of the Third Geneva Convention, 1949
 Yadanabon University Research Journal 2022, Vol.12 , No.1 173

Prisoners of war are subject to the laws, regulations and orders of the Detaining Power, but
must not be punishable for any act which would not have been punishable if committed by a
member of that power’s own forces. They are subject to the same courts and procedure as those
offences but this does not prevent them from being punished for offences against camp discipline. 1
Proceedings may be judicial, conducted by ordinary criminal courts or court martial, or
disciplinary, tired by a non-judicial body such as the camp commandant. They may only be tired
by a civil tribunal if the detaining Power’s forces may be so tired for the offence involved, and
provided the tribunal offers the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality generally
recognized as compatible with the rule of law.2
No prisoners may be punished more than once for the same offence or on the same charge.3 This
does not prevent his home State form trying him upon repatriation even though he has already
been tried by the camp commandant while a prisoners. In fixing the penalty, the penalty may be
less than the minimum than would be imposed on a member of the holding force. Prisoners who
have completed their sentence must be treated as any other prisoner of war.4
The accused must be informed of the charges, given an opportunity to defend himself, call
witnesses and, if necessary, have the services of a competent interpreter. The decision must be
announced to the accused.5
The prisoners may not be subjected to any pressure to make him plead guilty and must be
allowed to present his defence.6
Whenever it is intended to institute judicial proceedings against a prisoners of war, the
Protecting power must be given at least three weeks notice of the date of trial. The protecting
power must be informed of any judgment sentence, together with details as to the right of appeal
which shall be the same as that available to members of the Detaining Power’s forces.7
The ICRC exercises individual supervision in any case of judicial proceedings as Protecting
Power and informs of the place of internment and confinement of the prisoner of ear to whom
assistance is to be given.
No death sentence may be carried out until six months after the Protecting Power has been
informed.8

1
Article 82 of the Third Geneva Convention, 1949
2
L.C Green, the Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict, 1993,p.202
3
Article 75(4) of the Protocol I of Geneva Convention, 1949
4
L.C Green, the Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict, 1993,p.203
5
L.C Green, the Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict, 1993,p.203
6
Article 95 of the Protocol I of Geneva Convention, 1949
7
Jean de Preux, Commentary of Third Geneva Convention,1949,ICRC, Geneva, 1960,p.574
8
Article 100 of Third Geneva Convention, 1949
174 Yadanabon University Research Journal 2022, Vol.12 , No.1

Therefore prisoner of war should have the right to entitle adequate treatment during
captivity. Parties to the conflict should repatriate prisoners of war immediately after the cessation
of active hostilities. So that war should be ceased and problem should be settled peacefully.
Conclusion
Numerous provisions on prisoner of war have established in Geneva Convention. However,
there are countless examples of violations of international humanitarian law either international
armed conflict or internal armed conflict around the world.
Most of the armed groups have often violated and still violate the accepted norms of
international law regarding prisoners of war. It is difficult to expect a State to accept limitations of
its sovereignty in wartime, because the penal legislation regarding public order applicable on the
territory of each State is generally reinforced. Whatever parties to the humanitarian treaty have to
comply with obligations arising out of that treaty, whereas all States have to respect provisions
thereof. If necessary, they must prevent and punish all violations of international humanitarian law.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to thank Dr. Tint Moe Thuzar, Rector of Yadanabon
University, for her encouragement to conduct this research. I would also like to give my gratitude to my
Professor & Head(Rtd.) Dr Daw Than Nwe for her encouragement and her wise mentorship.

References
Green, L.C, the Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict, 1993
Preux, Jean de, Commentary of Third Geneva Convention,1949,ICRC, Geneva, 1960
Gasser, Hans-Peter, International Humanitarian Law, Henry Dunant Institute, 1993
Mukherjee, Dr, Sobhanlal, International Law, 1961
M. Foster Farley, Prisoners for Profit: Ransom, 1989
Bory, Francoise, Origin and Development of International Humanitarian Law, 1982
Shaw, Malcom N., International Law, Cambridge University, 6 th Edition, 2008
Aust, Anthony, Handbook of International Law, Cambridge University, 2005
Protocol I of Geneva Convention, 1949
Third Geneva Convention, 1949
Sources from Internet
http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/.../chap10eng-asp
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/../Nazi-crimes-against
Case
Public Prosecutor Vs. Oie Hee Koi and connected appeals, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council(UK)
4December,1867