¹ A search of the leading textbooks, monographs, and journals on international humanitarian law reveals nothing written on this subject prior to 2017, with the exception of Rowe, P, ‘The Obligation of a State under International Law to Protect Members of Its Own Armed Forces during Armed Conflict or Occupation’ (2006) 9 YIHL 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Sivakumaran, S, The Law of Non-International Armed Conflict (Oxford University Press 2012) 246–9Google Scholar, arguing that certain provisions apply to intra-party relationships. The topic still remains under-examined; for example, it is discussed briefly in only one contribution (P Sellers and I Rosenthal, ‘Rape and Other Sexual Violence’ 343, 356) to the landmark 1754-page Clapham, A, Gaeta, P and Sassoli, M (eds), The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary (Oxford University Press 2015)Google Scholar.

² Cassese, A, International Criminal Law (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2008) 82Google Scholar, arguing that ‘crimes committed by servicemen against their own military (whatever their nationality) do not constitute war crimes. Such offences may nonetheless fall within the ambit of the military law of the relevant belligerent.’ cf Sivakumaran ibid.

³ The definition of ‘civilian population’ for the purposes of crimes against humanity in international criminal law has been informed by art 50 of Additional Protocol I, which defines a civilian as any person not falling within any of the categories of person set out in arts 4A(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Geneva Convention or art 43 of Additional Protocol I. See for example, Prosecutor v Blaškić, Judgement, Case No. IT-95-14-A (29 July 2004) paras 110–116; Prosecutor v Bemba, Judgment, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-3343 (21 March 2016) para 152.

⁴ It is well established that States’ human rights obligations continue to apply in armed conflict: see, for example, the International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (9 July 2004) ICJ Rep 2004; Human Rights Committee, General Comment 29, States of Emergency (Article 4), UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11 (2001) para 3; Murray, D et al. , Practitioners’ Guide to Human Rights Law in Armed Conflict (Oxford University Press 2016)Google Scholar. On armed groups’ human rights obligations, see Murray, D, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Armed Groups (Hart 2016)Google Scholar.

⁵ The Patriotic Forces for the Liberation of the Congo (FPLC), the military wing of the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC), were engaged in an armed conflict in Ituri, a region in north-eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo from 2002 to 2003. Bosco Ntaganda is the former Deputy Chief of Staff of the FPLC. There are three separate decisions on this issue, from different stages of the proceedings: Prosecutor v Ntaganda, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Bosco Ntaganda, Case No ICC-01/04-02/06-309 (9 June 2014) para 77 (‘Ntaganda Pre-Trial Chamber decision’); Prosecutor v Ntaganda, Second decision on the Defence's challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court in respect of Counts 6 and 9, Case No ICC-01/04-02/06-1707 (4 January 2017) (‘Ntaganda Trial Chamber decision’); Prosecutor v Ntaganda, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Ntaganda against the ‘Second decision on the Defence's challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court in respect of Counts 6 and 9’, Case No ICC-01/04-02/06-196 (15 June 2017) (‘Ntaganda Appeals Chamber decision’).

⁶ Cases 003 and 004, Call for Submissions by the Parties in Cases 003 and 004 and Call for Amicus Curiae Briefs, Case File No 003/07-09-2009-ECCC-OCIJ (19 April 2016).

⁷ Cases 003 and 004, D191/18: Notification on the Interpretation of ‘Attack Against the Civilian Population’ in the Context of Crimes Against Humanity with regard to a State's or Regime's Own Armed Forces, Case File No 003/07-09-2009-ECCC-OCIJ (7 February 2017) para 69 (‘ICIJ Crimes Against Humanity Decision’).

⁸ Cases 003 and 004, D347.1/1/7: Decision on Appeal Against the Notification on the Interpretation of ‘Attack Against the Civilian Population’ in the Context of Crimes against Humanity with Regard to a State's Regime Own Armed Forces, Case File No. 003/07-09-2009-ECCC-OCIJ (30 June 2017).

⁹ Ntaganda Pre-Trial Chamber decision (n 5) para 78.

¹⁰ ibid.

¹¹ ibid, para 79.

¹² ibid.

¹³ ibid.

¹⁴ ibid, para 80.

¹⁵ Common art 3 of the Geneva Conventions refers to ‘persons taking no active part in the hostilities’ in setting out minimum standards (art 3(1)), and further notes, in art 3(2), that ‘the wounded and sick shall be cared for’.

¹⁶ ICRC, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law (ICRC 2009) 70–1Google Scholar.

¹⁷ ibid 71–3.

¹⁸ ibid 33.

¹⁹ Art 50(1) of Additional Protocol I defines civilians as persons who do not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in art 4(A)(1), (2), (3), and (6) of the Third Geneva Convention. See also Additional Protocol I, art 43.

²⁰ Prosecutor v Lubanga, Judgment pursuant to art 74 of the Statute, Case No ICC-01/04-01/06-2842 (14 March 2012).

²¹ ibid, para 628.

²² Rodenhäuser, T, ‘Squaring the Circle? Prosecuting Sexual Violence against Child Soldiers by their “Own Forces”’ (2016) 14 JICJ 171Google Scholar; Grey, R, ‘Sexual Violence against Child Soldiers: The Limits and Potential of International Criminal Law’ (2014) 16 International Feminist Journal of Politics 601CrossRefGoogle Scholar; PV Sellers, ‘Ntaganda: Re-Alignment of a Paradigm’ in Proceedings of the San Remo Round Table on ‘The Additional Protocols 40 Years Later: New Conflicts, New Actors, New Perspectives’ (IIHL 2017), available at <http://iihl.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/The-Additional-Protocols-40-Years-Later-New-Conflicts-New-Actors-New-Perspectives_2.pdf> 116.

²³ Prosecutor v Ntaganda, Application on behalf of Mr Ntaganda challenging the jurisdiction of the Court in respect of Counts 6 and 9 of the Document containing the charges, Case No ICC-01/04-02/06-804 (1 September 2015).

²⁴ Ntaganda Trial Chamber decision (n 5) para 40.

²⁵ ibid.

²⁶ Emphasis added. This reference to the established framework of international law is found in both 8(2)(b) and (e) of the ICC Statute, and the corresponding provisions of the ICC Elements of Crimes.

²⁷ Cottier, M, ‘Article 8’ in Triffterer, O and Ambos, K (eds), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Observers' Notes, Article by Article (3rd edn, Hart/Beck 2016) 317Google Scholar.

²⁸ ibid 318.

²⁹ Art 4(1), Additional Protocol II. Art 4(2), outlining the fundamental guarantees, further confirms that those acts are prohibited ‘against the persons referred to in paragraph 1’.

³⁰ Art 4(3), Additional Protocol II.

³¹ Sellers (n 22) 132.

³² Ntaganda Trial Chamber decision, para 46.

³³ Ntaganda Trial Chamber decision, paras 46–47.

³⁴ ibid (referring to art 75 of Additional Protocol I, noting that it ‘refers to “a Party to the conflict” (emphasis added) and therefore does not limit the fundamental guarantees to persons in the power of the opposing party.’).

³⁵ Wessel, J, ‘Judicial Policy-Making at the International Criminal Court: An Institutional Guide to Analyzing International Adjudication’ (2006) 44 ColumJTransnatlL 377, 390Google Scholar.

³⁶ B van Schaak, ‘Crimen Sine Lege: Judicial Lawmaking at the Intersection of Law and Morals’ (2007) Santa Clara University School of Law Legal Studies Research Papers Series, Working Paper No. 07-47, 26–7.

³⁷ Ntaganda Trial Chamber decision (n 5) paras 48–49.

³⁸ ICRC, Commentary on the First Geneva Convention: Convention I for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2016)Google Scholar.

³⁹ ibid, para 547.

⁴⁰ ibid

⁴¹ ibid (citing Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (1986) ICJ 14 (27 June 1986) paras 218–219).

⁴² ICRC (n 38) para 547.

⁴³ Prosecutor v Ntaganda, Prosecution's Response to Ntaganda's ‘Appeal from the Second Decision on the Defence's Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court in respect of Counts 6 and 9’, Case No ICC-01/04-02/06-1794 (17 February 2017).

⁴⁴ Newton, M, ‘Contorting Common Article 3: Reflections on the Revised ICRC Commentary’ (2017) 45 GaJIntl&Comp. 513, 517–22Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Judge Ozaki ‘reserve[d] her views’ on the question of whether the prohibition of rape was a jus cogens norm, finding the statement on this issue to be ‘unnecessary to the reasoning’ and potentially misleading.

⁴⁶ Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v Spain) (1970) ICJ 3 (5 February 1970).

⁴⁷ Nicaragua case (n 41) para 190.

⁴⁸ Barcelona Traction case (n 46), paras 33 and 34. Para 33 discusses the nature of erga omnes norms, while para 34 discusses the origins of erga omnes from international law, as well as the principles and rules on human rights (including slavery and racial discrimination).

⁴⁹ Final report submitted by Special Rapporteur Gay J McDougall, Contemporary Forms of Slavery – Systematic Rape, Sexual Slavery and Slavery-Like Practices during Armed Conflict, Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Fiftieth session, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/13 (22 June 1998) para 30

⁵⁰ Prosecutor v Brima, Kamara, and Kanu, Judgement, Case No SCSL-04-16-T (20 June 2007) para 705, citing Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, ibid (6 June 2000) para 51.

⁵¹ The Special Rapporteur's 1998 report (n 49) makes reference only to general sources on the prohibition of slavery under international law (eg ‘M. Cherif Bassiouni, International Crimes: Digest/Index of International Instruments 1815-1985, vol. 1, 1986, 419 and main report, note 14 (detailing the incremental history of the international abolition of slavery)’, and to sources outlining practices of sexual slavery, for example in Japan and the former Yugoslavia.

⁵² Askin, KD, War Crimes against Women: Prosecutions in International War Crimes Tribunals (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1997) 242Google Scholar.

⁵³ Mitchell, DS, ‘The Prohibition of Rape in International Humanitarian Law as a Norm of Jus Cogens: Clarifying the Doctrine’ (2005) 15 DukeJComp&IntlL 219Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Ntaganda Appeals Chamber decision (n 5) para 51, citing Ntaganda Trial Chamber decision (n 5) para 44.

⁵⁵ Ntaganda Appeals Chamber decision (n 5) para 50.

⁵⁶ Cottier (n 27) 354.

⁵⁷ See text to (n 29).

⁵⁸ Ntaganda Appeals Chamber decision (n 5) para 64.

⁵⁹ Ntaganda Appeals Chamber decision (n 5) para 68.

⁶⁰ ibid, para 67.

⁶¹ Case 002/1, Appeal Judgement, 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC (23 November 2016) para 738, citing Prosecutor v Blaškić, Judgement, IT-95-14-A (29 July 2004) para 113.

⁶² See Jørgensen, N, The Elgar Companion to the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (Edward Elgar 2018) 224CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶³ ICIJ Crimes Against Humanity Decision (n 7) para 55.

⁶⁴ Case 001, Appeal Judgement, 001/18-07-2007-ECCC/SC (3 February 2012) para 93.

⁶⁵ Jørgensen (n 62) 224.

⁶⁶ ibid.

⁶⁷ ICIJ Crimes Against Humanity Decision (n 7) paras 25–26.

⁶⁸ ibid, para 23.

⁶⁹ Case 001 Appeal Judgement (n 64) para 93.

⁷⁰ UNWCC, ‘History of the United Nations War Crimes Commission and the Development of the Laws of War (1948) 193 (original emphasis). See also 178.

⁷¹ UNWCC, ‘General Propositions Defining the Term “Crimes against Humanity” under the Charters of the International Military Tribunals and the Control Council Law No. 10’ (30 May 1946) C.201 para 4.

⁷² UNWCC History (n 70) 202.

⁷³ Indictment of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal (1947) vol I, 65.

⁷⁴ ibid 52. See also at 77 where the indictment summarises the participation of the accused Keitel, alleging his participation in ‘War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity involved in the ill-treatment of prisoners of war and of the civilian population of occupied territories’.

⁷⁵ Judgment of the International Military Tribunal (14 November 1945–1 October 1946) vol I, 226.

⁷⁶ ibid 289.

⁷⁷ ibid 292.

⁷⁸ ibid 332. See also, for the same approach to other accused, von Ribbentrop, 287; Bormann, 340–341.

⁷⁹ UNWCC History (n 70) 189 (emphasis added).

⁸⁰ ibid 35 (emphasis added). See also 35–6.

⁸¹ UNWCC, ‘Scope of the Retributive Actions of the United Nations. Conclusions proposed by the Drafting Committee’ (12 May 1944) III/5, para 3 (emphasis added).

⁸² Trials of War Criminal Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, ‘The Justice Case’ (October 1946–April 1949) vol III, 47 (emphasis added).

⁸³ UNWCC, ‘Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals’ (UNWCC 1948) vol VI, 79 (emphasis added).

⁸⁴ ICIJ Crimes Against Humanity Decision (n 7) para 31.

⁸⁵ ibid, para 33.

⁸⁶ ibid, para 34.

⁸⁷ ibid, para 2.

⁸⁸ Case 001 Appeal Judgement (n 64) para 233.

⁸⁹ Jørgensen (n 62) 224.

⁹⁰ ICIJ Crimes Against Humanity Decision (n 7) para 38.

⁹¹ ibid, paras 39–42.

⁹² ibid, para 43. See also para 32.

⁹³ ibid, para 32.

⁹⁴ Blaškić Appeal Judgement (n 61) para 113.

⁹⁵ ICIJ Crimes Against Humanity Decision (n 7) paras 51–52.

⁹⁶ ibid, para 52.

⁹⁷ ibid, para 49. See also para 50.

⁹⁸ ibid, para 59.

⁹⁹ ibid, paras 47–54.

¹⁰⁰ ibid, para 55.

¹⁰¹ Case 002/01, Judgement, 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC (7 August 2014) para 185.

¹⁰² ibid, para 186.

¹⁰³ Case 002/01 Appeal Judgement (n 61), para 738, citing Blaškić Appeal Judgement (n 61) paras 110–113.

¹⁰⁴ Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002) 2187 UNTS 90, art 8(1).

¹⁰⁵ While the Ntaganda Trial Judgment did not revisit the question of whether members of the same armed force could be victims of war crimes, given that the issue had been comprehensively addressed in the preceding case law outlined at (n 5), it did emphasise that a nexus must be established with the armed conflict in question for conduct to qualify as a war crime: Situation in the DRC: Prosecutor v Ntaganda, Judgment, Case No ICC-01/04-01/06-2359 (8 July 2019) paras 731–733.

¹⁰⁶ ibid, paras 983–986.

¹⁰⁷ See eg UNGA Res 60/1 (24 October 2005) UN Doc A/RES/60/1, paras 138–140; UNSC Res 1674 (28 April 2006) UN Doc S/RES/1674.

¹⁰⁸ Prosecutor v Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Judgement, Case No SCSL-04-15-T (2 March 2009) para 1455 (‘RUF Judgment’).

¹⁰⁹ ibid, paras 1451 and 1457. Some of the victims were combatants affiliated to the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC), who fought alongside the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Sierra Leone's civil war.

¹¹⁰ ibid, para 1453, adding ‘In our view, a different approach would constitute an inappropriate re-conceptualisation of a fundamental principle of international humanitarian law.’

¹¹¹ ibid, para 1451.

¹¹² ibid, para 1452.

¹¹³ eg arts 13(1) and (2) of Geneva Conventions I and II.

¹¹⁴ Art 10, Additional Protocol I (emphasis added).

¹¹⁵ Prosecutor v Kvočka, Judgement, Case No IT-98-30/1-A (28 February 2005). See further, Kleffner, JK, ‘Friend or Foe? On the Protective Reach of the Law of Armed Conflict’ in Matthee, M, Toebes, B and Brus, M (eds), Armed Conflict and International Law: In Search of the Human Face (T.M.C. Asser Press 2013) 285, 299–300Google Scholar.

¹¹⁶ Prosecutor v Kvočka, Judgement, Case No IT-98-30/1-T (2 November 2001) para 691.

¹¹⁷ Kvočka Appeals Judgement (n 115) paras 457–458.

¹¹⁸ Kvočka Appeals Judgment (n 115) para 560.

¹¹⁹ ibid. The Prosecution apparently did not focus on the fact of the detainee's (former) allegiance to the detaining authorities.

¹²⁰ Kvočka Appeals Judgement (n 115) para 561.

¹²¹ Ntaganda Pre-Trial Chamber decision (n 5).

¹²² Common Article 3 (emphasis added).

¹²³ Art 77(2), Additional Protocol I; art 4(3)(c), Additional Protocol II. See further Rodenhäuser (n 22),

¹²⁴ J Kleffner, ‘The Beneficiaries of the Rights Stemming from Common Article 3’ in Clapham et al. (n 1) 433, 436.

¹²⁵ Art 4(1), Additional Protocol II.

¹²⁶ cf Newton (n 44) 523–4, stating that States’ primary concerns at the time of drafting were to preserve the sovereignty of the State and to ensure that insurgents did not benefit from too many protections. There appears to be nothing in the drafting of the Conventions on excluding members of the same armed forces; States were more concerned with the possibility that they might have to recognise armed groups.

¹²⁷ Pictet, J, Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of August 12 1949: Vol I (ICRC 1952) 145Google Scholar.

¹²⁸ de Preux, J, Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of August 12 1949: Vol III (ICRC 1960) 28Google Scholar.

¹²⁹ ibid.

¹³⁰ Art 2, Additional Protocol II; Common Article 3. See further Kleffner (n 124) 436; Kleffner (n 115) 300.

¹³¹ Common Article 3. Art 2, Additional Protocol II has a broader list of impermissible adverse distinctions, stating that the Protocol ‘shall be applied without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria’.

¹³² Pictet (n 127) 55.

¹³³ Commentary to ICRC Customary IHL Study, Rule 47, available <https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule47> (stating that this is a customary rule of IHL applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts).

¹³⁴ We make a similar argument in relation to international armed conflicts in subsection IV. A.3.

¹³⁵ RUF Judgment (n 108) para 1389.

¹³⁶ ibid, para 1451.

¹³⁷ ibid.

¹³⁸ ‘Any other cause’, for these purposes, could include incidents of the commission of crimes against an individual by members of their own forces, because during such time they would not be in a position to actively participate in hostilities.

¹³⁹ RUF Judgment (n 108) paras 1451–1454.

¹⁴⁰ Buchan, R, ‘The Rule of Surrender in International Humanitarian Law’ (2018) 51 IsraelLRev 3Google Scholar.

¹⁴¹ ICRC (n 16) 28.

¹⁴² Melzer, N, ‘The Principle of Distinction between Civilians and Combatants’ in Clapham, A and Gaeta, P (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict (Oxford University Press 2014) 296, 312Google Scholar.

¹⁴³ Pejic, J, ‘The protective scope of Common Article 3: more than meets the eye’ (2011) 93(881) IRRC 1, 36Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁴ Art 35, Additional Protocol I.

¹⁴⁵ Rodenhäuser (n 22) 186–7.

¹⁴⁶ Ntaganda Pre-Trial Chamber decision (n 5) para 78.

¹⁴⁷ Lubanga Judgment (n 20) para 628.

¹⁴⁸ ICRC (n 16) 43-44.

¹⁴⁹ Prosecutor v Lubanga, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against his conviction, Case No ICC-01/04-01/06-3121 (1 December 2014) paras 323–328.

¹⁵⁰ The so-called ‘Geneva Law offences’, or offences against persons in the hands of a party to an armed conflict: Cottier (n 27) 319–21.

¹⁵¹ Under the ICC Statute, the following war crimes are committed against individuals in non-international armed conflicts: all of the acts enumerated under art 8(2)(c) and art 8(2)(e).

¹⁵² Art 50(1) of Additional Protocol I defines civilians as persons who do not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in art 4(A)(1), (2), (3), and (6) of the Third Geneva Convention. See also Additional Protocol I, art 43.

¹⁵³ Art 4(1), Geneva Convention I.

¹⁵⁴ Rubenstein, K, ‘Rethinking Nationality in International Humanitarian Law’ in Dolgopol, U and Gardam, J (eds), The Challenge of Conflict: International Law Responds (Brill 2006) 89, 90Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁵ Prosecutor v Tadić, Judgement, Case No. IT-94-1-A (15 July 1999) paras 164–165; 168.

¹⁵⁶ ibid, para 166.

¹⁵⁷ Prosecutor v Delalić et al., Judgement, Case No IT-96-21-A (20 February 200) para 418; see also Prosecutor v Kordić and Čerkez, Judgement, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A (17 December 2004) para 329; Prosecutor v Lubanga, Decision on the Confirmation of the Charges, Case No ICC-01/04-01/06-803 (7 February 2007) para 278.

¹⁵⁸ Prosecutor v Prlić et al., Judgement, Case No IT-04-74-A (29 November 2017) para 348.

¹⁵⁹ Art 4(A), Geneva Convention III.

¹⁶⁰ Prosecutor v Prlić et al., Judgement, Case No IT-04-74-T (29 May 2013) paras 603–605.

¹⁶¹ ibid, paras 606–608.

¹⁶² ibid, para 610.

¹⁶³ ibid, para 611.

¹⁶⁴ Prlić Appeal Judgement (n 158) para 349.

¹⁶⁵ ibid, para 350.

¹⁶⁶ ibid, para 354.

¹⁶⁷ ibid, para 358.

¹⁶⁸ ibid, para 359.

¹⁶⁹ ibid, para 358.

¹⁷⁰ ICRC, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Martinus Nijhoff 1987)Google Scholar Additional Protocol I art 50, 610.

¹⁷¹ Prosecutor v Tadić, Judgment, IT-94-I-T (7 May 1997) para 640.

¹⁷² See Blaškić Appeal Judgement (n 61) para 111. Despite denying ‘civilian status’ to soldiers based on its interpretation of civilian through Additional Protocol I, the Appeals Chamber stated that when it is unclear as to whether a person is a civilian, that ‘the imperative “in case of doubt” is limited to the expected conduct of a member of the military’. Clearly during peacetime, the expected conduct of a soldier does not entail the undertaking of any action which would put that individual at risk of losing his/her protection under international law and opening themselves to legitimate targeting and killing.

¹⁷³ Fernández, RA and Estapà, JS, ‘Towards a Single and Comprehensive Notion of ‘‘Civilian Population’’ in Crimes against Humanity’ (2016) 17 IntCLR 1, 24Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁴ Prosecutor v Kupreškić et al., Judgement, IT-95-16-T (14 January 2000) para 547.

¹⁷⁵ Hall, C and Ambos, K, ‘Article 7’ in Triffterer, O and Ambos, K (eds), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Observers’ Notes, Article by Article (3rd edn, Hart/Beck 2016) 144, 174Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁶ Sadat, LN, ‘Putting Peacetime First: Crimes Against Humanity and the Civilian Population Requirement’ (2017) 31 EmoryIntlLRev 197, 212Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁷ See eg ICRC, ‘Database of Customary International Humanitarian Law’ (n 133) Rule 1.

¹⁷⁸ Luban, D ‘A Theory of Crimes Against Humanity’ (2004) 29 YaleJIntlL 85, 98Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁹ Tadić Trial Judgement (n 171) paras 644, 648; Prosecutor v Kunarac et al., Judgement, IT-96-23/1-A (12 June 2002) para 90.

¹⁸⁰ Prosecutor v Šainović et al., Judgement, IT-05-87-T (26 February 2009) para 147.

¹⁸¹ ibid, para 144.

¹⁸² Fernández and Estapà (n 173) 31.

¹⁸³ See Sadat, LN, ‘Crimes Against Humanity in the Modern Age’ (2013) 107 AJIL 334, 356Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁴ Sadat (n 176) 205.

¹⁸⁵ For the ICTR, the reliance on Common Article 3 was less surprising, given that its Statute does not contain any armed conflict requirement and that the court was addressing a situation of non-international armed conflict.

¹⁸⁶ Tadić Trial Judgement (n 171) paras 637–638; Prosecutor v Akayesu, Judgement, ICTR-96-4-T (2 September 1998) para 582.

¹⁸⁷ Prosecutor v Blaškić, Judgement, IT-95-14-T (3 March 2000) para 214.

¹⁸⁸ Prosecutor v Naletilić and Martinović, Judgement, IT-98-34-T (31 March 2003) para 235; Prosecutor v Kajelijeli, Judgment and Sentence, ICTR-98-44A-T (1 December 2003) paras 873–874; Prosecutor v Musema, Judgement and Sentence, ICTR-96-13-A (27 January 2000) para 207; Prosecutor v Rutaganda, Judgement and Sentence, ICTR-96-3-T (6 December 1999) para 72; Prosecutor v Kamuhanda, Judgement, ICTR-95-54A-T (22 January 2004) para 667; Prosecutor v Bagilishema, Judgement, ICTR-95-1A-T (7 June 2001) para 79.

¹⁸⁹ Sadat (n 176) 218.

¹⁹⁰ Blaškić Appeal Judgement (n 61) para 110.

¹⁹¹ Though the ICTY Appeals Chamber disavowed the Blaškić Trial Judgement's reliance on the specific situation of an individual when assessing whether the person was a ‘civilian’, various Appeals Chambers have referred to the specific situation of the individual when assessing whether a ‘civilian population’ is just that. See eg Prosecutor v Mrkšić et al., Judgement, IT-95-13/1-A, 5 May 2009, para 30; Kunarac Appeal Judgement (n 179) para 91; Blaškić Appeal Judgement (n 61) paras 113–115.

¹⁹² Blaškić Appeal Judgement (n 61) para 114.

¹⁹³ See eg Prosecutor v Ðorđević, Judgement, IT-05-87/1-A (27 January 2014) para 522; Kordić and Čerkez Appeal Judgement (n 157) para 97; Prosecutor v Martić, Judgement, IT-95-11-A (8 October 2008) para 35; Mrkšić Appeal Judgment (n 191) para 35; Case 001 Appeal Judgment (n 64) para 304; Bemba Trial Judgement (n 3) para 152; Prosecutor v Taylor, Judgement, SCSL-03-01-T (18 May 2012) para 508.

¹⁹⁴ See eg Akayesu Trial Judgement (n 186) para 582; Prosecutor v Limaj et al., Judgement, IT-03-66-T (30 November 2005) paras 223–234; Prosecutor v Brđjanin, Judgement, IT-99-36-T (1 September 2004) para 134; Prosecutor v Krajišnik, Judgement, IT-00-39-T (27 September 2006) para 706; Prosecutor v Halilović, Judgement, IT-01-48-T (16 November 2005) para 34; Prosecutor v Bisengimana, Judgement and Sentence, ICTR-00-60-T (13 April 2006) paras 48–49; Prosecutor v Seromba, Judgement, ICTR-2001-66-I (13 December 2006) para 358; Prosecutor v Simba, Judgement and Sentence, ICTR-01-76-T (13 December 2005) para 421; Prosecutor v Muvunyi, Judgement, ICTR-00-55A-T (11 February 2010) para 512; Prosecutor v Ndindiliyimana et al., Judgement, ICTR-00-56-T (17 May 2011) para 2095.

¹⁹⁵ Prosecutor v Mrkšić et al., Judgement, IT-95-13/1-T (27 September 2007) para 463.

¹⁹⁶ Mrkšić Appeal Judgement (n 191) paras 3, 36.

¹⁹⁷ Mrkšić Trial Judgement (n 195) para 83. The killings also took place in the context of a widespread and systematic attack, see para 480.

¹⁹⁸ Mrkšić Appeal Judgement (n 191), para 29, relying on Prosecutor v Martić, Judgement, IT-95-11-A, 8 October 2008, para 307.

¹⁹⁹ Mrkšić Appeal Judgement (n 191) paras 30–31.

²⁰⁰ ibid, para 32.

²⁰¹ See, Kordić and Čerkez Appeal Judgement (n 157) paras 458, 461.

²⁰² See eg Prosecutor v Blagojević & Jokić, Judgement, IT-02-60-T (17 January 2005) para 544; Tadić Trial Judgment (n 171) para 638; Prosecutor v Semanza, Judgement, ICTR-97-20-T (15 May 2003) para 330; Prosecutor v Kayishema and Ruzindana, Judgement, ICTR-95-1-T (21 May 1999) para 128; Limaj Trial Judgement (n 194) para 186; Prosecutor v Galić, Judgement, IT-98-29-T (5 December 2003) para 143; Bagilishema Trial Judgment (n 188) para 79; Akayesu Trial Judgement (n 186) para 582; Blaškić Appeal Judgment (n 190) para 113; Prosecutor v Popović et al. Judgement, IT-05-88-A (30 January 2015) para 569.

²⁰³ Prosecutor v Tolimir, Judgement, IT-05-88/2-A (8 April 2015) para 142.

²⁰⁴ See eg Case 001, Judgment, 001/18-07-2007/ECCC/TC, 26 July 2010, paras 322, 325; Tadić Trial Judgement (n 171) para 638; Akayesu Trial Judgement (n 186) para 582; Prosecutor v Muhimana, Judgement, ICTR-95-1B-T (28 April 2005) para 528; Prosecutor v Gacumbitsi, Judgement, ICTR-2001-64-T (17 June 2004) para 302; Blaškić Trial Judgement (n 187) para 214; Prosecutor v Galić, Judgement, IT-98-29-A (30 November 2006) para 144; Prosecutor v Milutinović et al., Judgement, IT-05-87-T (26 February 2009) para 146; Prosecutor v Milošević, Judgement, IT-98-29/1-A (12 November 2009) para 59; Muvunyi Trial Judgement (n 194) para 513; Prosecutor v Katanga, Judgment pursuant to art 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/07 (7 March 2014) para 1105; Blaškić Appeal Judgement (n 190) para 15; Prosecutor v Gbagbo, Decision on the confirmation of charges against Laurent Gbagbo, ICC-02/11-01/11 (12 June 2014) para 63.

²⁰⁵ Sadat (n 176) 210.

²⁰⁶ Hall and Ambos (n 175) 175.