View previous stories
	Calling on Africa’s leaders to stay in the I.C.C. by Fidh, AllAfrica & agencies   Paris, Nairobi, 18 October 2013   AU Summit on the ICC - Protecting leaders in office to the detriment of victims and peace. (Fidh)   The African Union (AU) held an extraordinary summit meeting in Addis Ababa on 11 and 12 October, in response to proceedings initiated by the International Criminal Court (ICC) involving Sudanese and Kenyan Heads of State and one deputy-president. Despite the support for international justice expressed by Heads of State during the meeting or by their absence, the AU adopted a decision which undermines one of the pillars of its mandate : the fight against impunity for the most serious crimes. This officially recognizes impunity for political leaders in office and leaves victims by the wayside.   During this Summit, which addressed Africa’s relations with the ICC, the AU determined that Heads of State and government in office should not be indicted by the ICC, arguing that otherwise the “sovereignty, stability and peace [of member states] would be undermined”. Paradoxically, 34 African States are parties to the Rome Statute and, through ratification, have voluntarily committed to protecting equal treatment for individuals in cases involving criminal responsibility for international crimes.   “This decision has tarnished AU efforts towards justice on the continent and is a worrying step back as it could serve as a precedent or alibi for Heads of State from other regions. It violates the provisions of the AU’s Constitutive act, is counter to the interests and obligations of the States that have ratified the Rome Statute, jeopardizes the independence of the ICC, and violates international criminal law which does not allow for exemption from criminal responsibility for crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide”, said Patrick Baudouin, FIDH Honorary President and Head of Legal Action Group. “The AU should have reminded its member States that none of the proceedings could have been initiated by the ICC had the relevant authorities demonstrated their willingness and ability to prosecute the most serious crimes committed in their countries”, added Mabassa Fall, FIDH Permanent Representative to the AU.   The AU decision called on the UN Security Council (UNSC) to suspend proceedings against the President and Deputy-President of Kenya, Uhuru Kenyatta and William Samoei Ruto, on the basis of article 16 of the Rome Statute. While the UNSC does not have the power to dismiss ICC proceedings, it can, however, in application of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, ask the ICC to stay investigations and proceedings underway, for a period of 12 months, when they constitute a threat to international peace and security. Clearly, it is the perpetration of international crimes and impunity of their authors that constitute the most serious threat to peace and security, and not the intervention of the ICC.   The AU announced the creation of a Contact Group of the Executive Council to be led by the current Chairperson of the Council and composed of five representatives of AU member States. This Contact Group will represent the AU in consultations with the five permanent members of the UNSC. In particular, the aim of the Contact Group will be to obtain the staying of investigations and proceedings involving the situation in Kenya.   “African countries had played a decisive role in the creation of the ICC and in the entry into force of the Rome Statue on 1 July 2002. Four African Heads of State have personally asked the ICC Prosecutor to open investigations into crimes which they were unable to prosecute themselves”, declared Karim Lahidji, FIDH President. “It is deplorable to see that these repeated attacks against ICC interventions made by certain Heads of State were only started when two of them were subject to prosecution. The protection of their own personal interests clearly supersedes any consideration for justice for the victims of these heinous crimes and seriously jeopardizes hopes for the consolidation of peace on the continent”, he added.   Immunity and Heads of State   FIDH points out that article 27 of the Rome Statute reads, “This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence”. This article was approved by 34 out of the 54 members of the AU who ratified the Rome Statute. It should be noted that Kenya’s constitution in particular, under article 143(4) prohibits immunity of the President from extending to a crime for which the President may be prosecuted under any treaty to which Kenya is party and which prohibits such immunity.   Since the beginning of the 20th century certain crimes have been deemed serious enough to merit international action. Actions undertaken by an international judicial institution are not, therefore, counter to national sovereignty, especially when States have recognized its jurisdiction. When atrocities are committed and the national judiciary is lacking, an international legal reaction is fundamental to the protection of victims’ rights and the consolidation of peace.   The African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights has recognized that the interpretation of immunity to foreigners, including Heads of State, must be done in as limited a manner as possible [1]. According to international law, Heads of State have immunity from prosecution before foreign courts; this allows them to perform their governance duties without hindrance. Notwithstanding, their duties do not include the alleged perpetration of international crimes. The International Court of Justice has established that immunity is not recognized by international criminal jurisdictions. Since 1945 and the Nuremberg Trial which prosecuted Nazi leaders, immunity for Heads of State cannot be used to absolve criminal responsibility. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda have also upheld this principle, as have the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Senegal which earlier this year initiated proceedings against the former Head of Chad, Hissène Habré, on the basis of an AU decision and “on behalf of Africa”.   Signatories include:   African Association of Human Rights (ASADHO - DRC); African Center for Justice and Peace Studies (ACJPS - Sudan); Malian Association of Human Rights (AMDH - Mali); Mauritanian Association of Human Rights (AMDH - Mauritania); Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO – Nigeria); International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH); Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC - Kenya); League of Voters (LE - DRC); Ivorian League of Human Rights (LIDHO – Ivory Coast); Ivorian Movement for Human Rights (MIDH – Ivory Coast); House of Human Rights (MDHC - Cameroon); Congoles Observatory for Human Rights (OCDH - Congo); Guinean Organisation for Human and Citizens Rights (OGDH - Guinea); African Meeting for the Defence of Human Rights (RADDHO - Senegal); Inter-African Union for Human Rights (UIDH); Chadian Association for the Promotion and Defence of Human Rights (ATPDH - Chad)   http://www.fidh.org/en/africa/african-union/14154-au-summit-on-the-icc-protecting-leaders-in-office-to-the-detriment-of   7 October 2013   Cape Town — Five days before crucial talks on whether African nations should pull out of the International Criminal Court (ICC), former United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan has come out in vigorous defence of the court.   Speaking to an audience in Cape Town, South Africa, Annan rejected accusations that the ICC was targeting Africa. "It is the culture of impunity and individuals who are on trial at the ICC, not Africa," he said.   Challenged on his remarks by questioners, he added: "The leaders are protecting themselves. No one speaks for the victims."   He said if leaders wanted to "fight" the court without caring about the victims of crime or providing alternative tribunals, "it will be a badge of shame for each and every one and for their countries".   Annan was delivering the annual Desmond Tutu International Peace Lecture at the University of the Western Cape on Monday. On Saturday, an extraordinary session of the African Union (AU) Assembly meets in Addis Ababa to discuss Africa"s relationship with the ICC. Reuters news agency recently quoted an AU official as saying that Kenyan officials "have been criss-crossing Africa in search of support" for a withdrawal from the court.   Kenya"s President Uhuru Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto are currently facing charges before the ICC of committing crimes against humanity, arising out of the ethnic violence which swept Kenya in the wake of the contested 2007 elections.   In a settlement of the resulting crisis - mediated by a team headed by Annan - Kenyan leaders agreed in 2008 that if those responsible for the violence were not tried in a domestic tribunal, the matter would be referred to the ICC. The Kenyan Parliament has reneged on this deal: it twice rejected proposals to set up a local special tribunal, triggering the ICC investigation and the current trials, then last month voted to pull out of the ICC.   Annan said in Cape Town: "When I meet Africans from all walks of life, they demand justice: from their national courts if possible, from international courts if no credible alternative exists... We must always have the courage to ask ourselves "who speaks for the victims?" On too many occasions, we have failed the victims of the worst crimes by neglecting to bring the perpetrators to justice."   Annan, who is Ghanaian, said when the international community adopted the Rome Statute setting up the ICC, "I was proud that so many African countries, where judicial systems are weak and divisions run deep, provided such strong support for the court. I am therefore concerned by recent efforts to portray the Court as targeting Africa. I know this is not the case.   "In four of the cases on Africa before the court, African leaders themselves made the referral to the ICC. In two others - Darfur and more recently Libya - it was the United Nations Security Council, and not the Court, which initiated proceedings."   He disputed an argument that insisting on justice "might obstruct the work for peace... In countries as far apart as Rwanda, Bosnia and Timor-L"Este, we have learned that justice is not an impediment to peace but a partner. When we abandon justice to secure peace, we most likely get neither. The parallel pursuit of justice and peace does present challenges, but they can be managed."   Annan cited the combating of impunity and the enhancing of the integrity of elections as two priorities for Africans wanting to "deepen democracy".   Another priority was to "turn our backs on the "winner takes all" approach to politics which has been so damaging to our continent". He said the approach had led to "abuses of power by the winner and encouraged losers to reject democracy as a peaceful means for change".   He added: "Too often, the individual interests of leaders have been misconstrued as interests of their country. Political leaders, who derive their position and legitimacy from the people, and are elected to serve them, can never be considered above the law.   "Genuine multiparty democracy provides mutual security to political opponents and encourages them to take part in the process rather than seek to subvert it... It is transparent and accountable institutions, not "strong men" or strong leaders that safeguard democracy and create the conditions for peace and prosperity."   130 groups from across Africa called on African members of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in a letter made public today to affirm their support for the court at an extraordinary summit of the African Union (AU). The meeting is scheduled for October 11 and 12, 2013, in Addis Ababa.   The groups, from 34 countries, said African countries should support the ICC as a crucial court of last resort, including for its current cases on crimes committed during Kenya"s post-election violence in 2007-2008.   The relationship between the ICC and some African governments has faced renewed challenges as the Kenya cases have progressed, the groups said. This has led to increased accusations that the court is targeting Africa, and questions over whether some African ICC members may be considering withdrawing from the ICC"s treaty, the Rome Statute.   "Southern Africa was at the forefront of pressing for a permanent international criminal court," said Angela Mudukuti, International Criminal Justice Programme Project Lawyer at the Southern Africa Litigation Center. "South Africa and other Southern Africa Development Community members should press the AU to work to expand the reach of justice, not cripple it."   In southern Africa, Botswana has been a vocal proponent of the ICC in the face of recent attacks on the court, but many other African ICC members have remained silent.   However, in its September statement to the UN General Assembly, Lesotho expressed strong support for the ICC, and it should reaffirm that support at the Addis summit. Mauritius also adopted legislation to implement the ICC"s treaty domestically in 2011, putting it in a good position to express strong support for the court at the summit.   African countries played an active role at the negotiations to establish the court, and 34 African countries - a majority of African Union members - are ICC members. African governments have sought out the ICC to try grave crimes committed on their territories, and Africans are among the highest-level ICC officials as well as serving as judges.   "Five African states asked the ICC to investigate crimes committed in their countries - Côte d"Ivoire, Uganda, Central African Republic, Mali, and Democratic Republic of Congo," said Georges Kapiamba, president of the Congolese Association for Access to Justice. "These states have particular authority and responsibility to dispel claims that the ICC is targeting Africa."   Any withdrawal from the ICC would send the wrong signal about Africa"s commitment to protect and promote human rights and to reject impunity, as reflected in article 4 of the AU"s Constitutive Act, the organizations said. The work and functioning of the ICC should not be beyond scrutiny and improvement, but withdrawal would risk grave consequences of undermining justice in Africa.   "This year Nigeria and Ghana both acknowledged the ICC as a crucial court of last resort, and are thus well placed to play a positive leadership role at the summit," said Chinonye Obiagwu, National Coordinatorat Nigeria"s Legal Defense and Assistance Project. "They should actively push back against unprincipled attacks on the court and support the ICC"s ability to operate without interference, including in Kenya."   The Nigerian government reaffirmed a "firm commitment to the Rome Statute" and "readiness for continued cooperation with ICC to put an end to impunity" in a recent filing to the ICC. President John Drimana Mahama of Ghana told France24 after an AU summit meeting in May, "I think the ICC has done an amazing job in bringing some people who have committed genocide and mass murder to justice."   Kenya"s leaders in 2008 initially agreed to set up a special tribunal to try cases related to the postelection violence, which claimed more than 1,100 lives, destroyed livelihoods, and displaced more than a half-million people. But efforts to create the tribunal or to move cases forward in ordinary courts failed. The ICC prosecutor then opened an investigation, as recommended by a national commission of inquiry set up as part of an African Union-mediated agreement to end the violence.   The groups said that Kenya has put governments in an awkward position by pressing for action to avoid the ICC"s cases while having failed to avail itself of the court"s procedures to authorize such a move based on credible domestic investigation and prosecution.   http://allafrica.com/stories/201310072289.html   African leaders could kill off a great institution, leaving the world a more dangerous place, writes Desmond Tutu.   The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the world’s first and only global court to adjudicate crimes against humanity.   Members of the African Union will meet in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, today to discuss recent calls by some African leaders to withdraw from the International Criminal Court. These calls must be resisted. The continent has suffered the consequences of unaccountable governance for too long to disown the protections offered by the I.C.C.   Those leaders seeking to skirt the court are effectively looking for a license to kill, maim and oppress their own people without consequence. They believe the interests of the people should not stand in the way of their ambitions of wealth and power; that being held to account by the I.C.C. interferes with their ability to achieve these ambitions; and that those who get in their way — the victims: their own people — should remain faceless and voiceless.   Most of all, they believe that neither the golden rule, nor the rule of law, applies to them.   But they know that they cannot say these things in public without repercussions. Instead, they conveniently accuse the I.C.C. of racism.   At first glance, the claim might seem plausible. The I.C.C., founded in 2002 and based in The Hague, has so far considered only cases against Africans. But this is partly because independent tribunals that were established to handle cases concerning the former Yugoslavia, Cambodia and other countries have naturally led to a reduction in the scope of the court’s activities.   So far, 32 people have been publicly indicted by the court, with only one conviction, of Thomas Lubanga, for war crimes in the Democratic Republic of Congo. But many of the investigations were not initiated by the court or a foreign body; they were referred to the court by African governments themselves. The judges and investigators were invited in.   So the African focus of the court should not be seen as an indictment of its neutrality but of the quality of leadership and democracy in many African countries. When thousands of people are murdered and displaced in any country, as in Sudan, for instance, ideally the country’s own system of justice will redress the wrongs. That is not in dispute. But when that country is unwilling or unable to restore justice, as is the case in many African countries, who should represent the interests of the victims? Critics of the I.C.C. say, “Nobody.” They simply vilify the institution as racist and unjust, as Hermann Göring and his fellow Nazi defendants vilified the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II.   While some African leaders play both the race and colonial cards, the facts are clear. Far from being a so-called white man’s witch hunt, the I.C.C. could not be more African if it tried. More than 20 African countries helped to found the I.C.C. Of the 108 nations that initially joined the I.C.C., 30 are in Africa. Five of the court’s 18 judges are African, as is its vice president, Sanji Mmasenono Monageng of Botswana. The court’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, who has huge power over which cases are brought forward, is from Gambia. The I.C.C. is very clearly an African court.   Leaving the I.C.C. would be a tragedy for Africa, as leaders like the former United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan, of Ghana, have noted. Without its deterrence, countries could and would attack their neighbors, or minorities in their own countries, with impunity. When Lubanga was arrested to face charges of enlisting and conscripting child soldiers, the threat of the I.C.C. undermined his support from other militias. After the Ivory Coast strongman Laurent Gbagbo was taken to face justice in The Hague, the country was able to rebuild.   Without this court, there would be no brake on the worst excesses of these criminals. And these violent leaders continue to plague Africa: the Great Lakes, Mali, northern Nigeria and Egypt all give reason for concern. Perpetrators of violence must not be allowed to wriggle free.   Moreover, where justice and order are not restored, there can be no healing, leaving violence and hatred ticking like a bomb in the corner. We know too well that long, painful road to healing in South Africa, as do the people of Kenya. As Africa begins to find its voice in world affairs, it must strengthen its commitment to the rule of law, not undermine it. These principles are part of our global moral and legal responsibility, not items from a menu we can choose only when it suits us.   Along with thousands of others, I have joined a campaign by Avaaz, an international advocacy group, calling on Africa’s leaders to stay in the I.C.C. The alternatives are too painful: revenge, like what happened in Rwanda, Kosovo and Bosnia, or blanket amnesty and a national commitment to amnesia, like what happened in Chile. The only way any country can deal with its past is to confront it.   We need loud voices in Addis Ababa to deliver this message, to shout down those who want us to do nothing. We also need the continent’s heavyweights, Nigeria and South Africa, to exercise leadership and stop those who don’t like the rules from attempting to rewrite them. Far from a fight between Africa and the West, this is a fight within Africa, for its soul.   * Desmond Tutu, the Anglican archbishop of Cape Town from 1986 to 1996, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 for his contribution to opposing apartheid. Africa Attacks the International Criminal Court, by Kenneth Roth, Director, Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/01/14/africa-attacks-international-criminal-court Visit the related web page
	Protect children at all times from the effects of conflict by Unicef, Save the Children, Amnesty & agencies   7 October 2013   UN Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict appalled by deadly suicide bomb attack on children in school playground.   Deploring the “appalling” suicide bomb attack that killed over 10 children and injured dozens more in northern Iraq, a senior United Nations official today appealed to the conflict-wracked country’s political, religious and civil leaders to find a way to put an end to the violence.   “It is our collective duty to protect children as well as their places of learning,” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict Leila Zerrougui said in a statement on yesterday’s attack in which the bomber detonated a truck filled with explosives on a school playground in a village in Mosul Province.   “Deliberately killing or injuring young children at their school is appalling. This is a grave violation of children’s rights and I remind everyone that schools are and must remain safe havens,” she added. “I call on political, religious and civil leaders to come together to find a solution to this surge of violence that is deeply affecting children.”   The surge of violence in Iraq spares no one and no place, the statement goes on to say. In the past few weeks and months, children have been killed or injured by attacks targeting civilians. Schools, as well as recreational areas where children gather to play, have been targeted.   Ms. Zerrougui works with the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and other partners to monitor and report on grave child rights violations, including attacks on schools.   http://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/press-release/iraq-children-and-school-targeted-in-new-attack/   October 6, 2013   Bomber Kills 13 Children at Iraq School Playground, by Duraid Adnan.   BAGHDAD: — A suicide bomber detonated a truck filled with explosives on the playground of an elementary school in northern Iraq on Sunday morning, killing 13 children and the headmaster, the police said.   The attack in Qabak, a Shiite Turkmen village just outside Tal Afar in Mosul Province, left 80 people wounded at the school.   The attack added to a wave of violence across the country, the deadliest outbreak in Iraq since 2008. A suicide bomber attacked a group of Shiite pilgrims in Baghdad on Sunday, the police said, killing 14 and wounding 34.   Abdul al-Obaidi, the mayor of Qabak, called the attack on the school “a crime against humanity” as he surveyed books splattered with blood amid the devastation on the playground. “The terrorists are trying to stop us from living and sending our children to school, but they will not, as we have our unity,” he said.   Many children who survived the attack were seriously wounded and were sent to larger, better-equipped hospitals in the Kurdistan region of Iraq for treatment, medical officials said.   “I don’t remember what happened,” said a sobbing boy named Ali, who suffered wounds to his face and legs. “I just want to see my mother.”   * The Universal Rights Network condemns in the strongest manner the targeting of children at any school anywhere.   3 October 2013   In the week that saw more than 50 students killed by gunmen in an agricultural college in Yobe State, Amnesty International publishes a new report assessing attacks on schools in northern Nigeria between 2012 and 2013.   “Hundreds have been killed in these horrific attacks. Thousands of children have been forced out of schools across communities in northern Nigeria and many teachers have been forced to flee for their safety,” said Lucy Freeman, Amnesty International’s deputy Africa director.   “Attacks against schoolchildren, teachers and school buildings demonstrate an absolute disregard for the right to life and the right to education.”   According to the report Education under attack in Nigeria, this year alone at least 70 teachers and scores of pupils have been slaughtered and many others wounded. Some 50 schools have been burned or seriously damaged and more than 60 others have been forced to close.   The Islamist group commonly known as Boko Haram has claimed responsibility for many, but not all, of the attacks.   Between 2010 and 2011 attacks were mostly carried out when schools were empty. However since the beginning of 2013 they appear to have become more targeted and brutal. They frequently happen when schools are occupied, and according to reports received by Amnesty International, teachers and pupils are now being directly targeted and killed.   In one of the cases detailed in the report the principle of a government secondary school in Maiduguri describes an attack in February 2013:   “The gunmen opened fire on everyone around. Two staff teachers were shot. One died on the spot and the other was seriously wounded. We were all devastated.”   The same school was attacked again the following month and three people were shot and killed in the exams office.   “We were forced to close the school immediately and asked the children to go home. We remained closed for that entire period.”   In spite of the tragic loss of life involved in these attacks, Amnesty International is not aware of anyone being arrested and prosecuted by the authorities.   “The Nigerian authorities must provide better protection for schools and ensure that attacks are properly investigated and suspected perpetrators brought to justice.”   Amnesty International is calling for Boko Haram and any affiliate armed groups or individuals to immediately stop all attacks on schools, teachers and pupils.   October 01 2013   Statement on Syria by Maria Calivis, UNICEF Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa.   UNICEF is appalled by the reported deaths of at least 12 children in an air attack on a secondary school in Raqqa, north east Syria, on 29 September. Reports from the scene say a total of 14 people – most of them students -- were killed in the attack on the Ibn Tufail Commercial Secondary School at around 8 a.m on Sunday -- the first day of the new school year. Incidents like this underscore the dangers children face as they try to continue their education during the current conflict – and help explain why many parents will not risk sending their children to school.   UNICEF has repeatedly called on all parties to the conflict to stop targeting schools, and instead recognize them as "zones of peace" where children can seek support and sanctuary. UNICEF condemns this attack in the strongest terms and once again calls on all parties including the Government of Syria to protect children at all times from the effects of conflict.   Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack:   Attacks on education violate the right to education and other internationally protected human rights applicable at all times:   • Attacks on education undermine, prevent, or deter realization of the fundamental right to education, a right enshrined in key international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.   • Attacks on education may also entail other violations of other human rights, including the rights to life; freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; freedom of expression; and freedom of association enshrined in international treaties including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.   During situations of armed conflict, attacks on education may violate international humanitarian and criminal law and constitute war crimes (or crimes against humanity during war or peacetime) as set out in the 1907 Hague Regulations, the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and customary international humanitarian law, which include the following prohibitions:   • Deliberate attacks on civilians, including students and educators.   • Deliberate attacks on civilian objects, which include education institutions not being used for military purposes.   • Failing to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians, such as using education institutions for military purposes while students and teachers remain present.   • Using students and educators as human shields by preventing civilians from leaving from education institutions that are being controlled by a military force.   Other actions that may result in violations of international human rights and humanitarian law:   The occupation or use of education institutions by armed forces and other armed groups may:   • Undermine, prevent, or deter students from realizing their right to education.   • Place students and educators at unnecessary risk of attack in violation of international humanitarian law.   • Place students and educators at unnecessary risk of abuses of their fundamental rights to personal security by occupying forces.   * What does international humanitarian law say about attacks on schools? (Watchlist on Children and Arned Conflict)   The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Optional Protocols of 1977 (the main treaties of International Humanitarian Law – IHL) set a range of minimum standards for the conduct of hostilities. They are based upon the fundamental principle of distinction between civilians and other protected persons, on the one hand, and those who take part in hostilities (combatants for short).   The term “civilian” refers to individuals or objects (e.g., premises) that do not have a direct role in hostilities (See Rule 5 and Rule 9 of the Study on customary international law by the International Committee of the Red Cross – ICRC). An attack against a civilian person or object is a violation of IHL and a war crime. Schools and hospitals retain their civilian status.   Constant care must be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects on all occassions. All feasible precautions must be taken to avoid, loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects (See Rule 15 of the Study on customary international law by the ICRC).   http://www.protectingeducation.org http://www.hrw.org/features/schools-as-battlegrounds http://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/ http://watchlist.org/ http://www.unicef.org/sowc05/english/conflict.html http://www.unicef.org/graca/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/nigeria-children-slaughtered-schools-under-siege-2013-10-03 Visit the related web page
	View more stories