CAB129-33 — Page 243

In such cases their own Government is bound neither to require of nor accept from them any service incompatible with the parole given.

11. A prisoner of war cannot be compelled to accept his liberty on parole; similarly the hostile Government is not obliged to accede to the request of a prisoner to be set at liberty on parole.

12. Prisoners of war liberated on parole and recaptured bearing arms against the Government to which they had pledged their honour, or against the allies of that Government, forfeit their right to be treated as prisoners of war, and may be put on trial before the Courts." (Manual of Military Law, 1929, page 376)

The 1947 Geneva Conference of Government Experts recommended

"that liberty on parole should be explicitly foreseen in the Convention,.

.not as a general measure but as optional

and justifiable in certain individual cases.

(C.R. G. C./P(47)1, page 66).

As this recommendation does not propose any material change in the existing International Law on the subject, and the admission of Parole would remain entirely optional for the two Governments concerned and for the prisoner of war I have not bothered my Committee with it; but I bring it to notice here.

95. I propose to discuss with the Legal Department of the Foreign Office the extent to which the whole of the subject matter quoted in paragraph 93 above from the Hague Regulations should be embodied in the Prisoners of War Convention.

96.

There are 22 Articles in

Disciplinary and Judicial Proceedings. the 1929 Prisoners of War Convention (Articles 45-66) dealing with the Disciplinary and Judicial treatment of prisoners of war; and in Part III of this Report (paragraphs 294-329 below) will be found the recommend- ations of my Committee for clarifying and expanding these Articles in "the light of experience. At the 1947 Geneva Conference of Government Experts these Articles were considered by a special Sub-Committee, on which the United Kingdom was represented by Mr. H.J. Phillimore

(formerly A.A.G., P.W.2, War Office and later one of the prosecuting. Counsel at the Nuremberg War Crimes trial). The recommendations of that Sub-Committee (C.R.G.C./P(47)1, Appendix F) were considered by a Sub-Committee of my Committee, on which were representatives of

Director of Personal Services, War Office, Director of Prisoners of War, War Office, Judge Advocate General, Treasury Solicitor.

b

Their detailed report was further examined by my Committee, at a meeting at which Mr. Phillimore and the whole of the Sub-Committee were present; and the recommendations in this Report represent the conclusions reached by the full Committee with the assent of the members of the Sub-Committee. For this reason I have not considered if necessary to annexe the Report of the Sub-Committee to this Report. 97. Code of Discipline and Law to be applied. The 1929 Prisoners of War Convention makes prisoners of war "subject to the laws, regulations,

The and orders in force in the armed forces of the Detaining Power". 1947 Geneva Conference of Government Experts recommended that this should continue to be the basis of disciplinary and of judicial proceedings, but that a revised Convention should also provide:-

Page 243

(a) that prisoners of war should be tried3243488al,

except where a civil court was the only competent tribunal to deal with the particular offence;

118

(b) that special legislation or orders differentiating against

prisoners of war should be admissible only to meet

the prisoner's

18 Tow);

exceptional circumstances arising for 104

Page 244nterment (see also paragraphs 103 and 164

(o) that two principles should be specifically stated in.

the Convention, viz:-

(a)

(i) that prisoners of war are not nationals of the

Detaining Power, to which they owe no allegiance;

(ii) that as members of armed forces prisoners of

war owe a duty of obedience to the country in whose forces they were serving at the time of capture;

that a Detaining Power may punish a prisoner of war for a penal offence against its laws committed before capture, but the prisoner of war concerned would not lose his status as a prisoner of war.

98. My Committee recommend that the United Kingdom delegation to a future International Conference should support the recommendations referred to in paragraph 97 above with two modifications, viz:-

(a) the omission of the reference to owing no allegiance

to the Detaining Power, as it may be that, in some circumstances, a prisoner of war might be held to - owe a limited and local allegiance to the Detaining Power: my Committee expressed no opinion on whether a prisoner of war could, in fact, properly be held to have any such local allegiance;

(b) the "law, regulations and orders......of the Detaining

Power" to be applicable only in so far as they do not conflict with the provisions of the Convention or with. the religious faith of a prisoner of war. (C. R. G. C./M(48)10, Item 70)

The reference to "religious faith" is suggested as a safeguard against such action as the German authorities took during the Second World War in compelling Sikhs to shave their heads in conformity with a German prison regulation.

99. Prisoners of War accused of War Crimes. There was, not surprisingly, strong pressure at the 1947 Geneva Conference of Government Experts to exclude War Criminals from any protection under the Convention. As a principle, no exception could be taken to this proposal; but in the view of delegations from some of the countries occupied during the Second World War, this exclusion should operate at once for any suspected war criminal. The only modifications which the United Kingdom dʊlegation were able to secure are embodied in the following formula:

"With regard to prisoners of war accused of war crimes;-

(i)

prisoners of war should enjoy the benefits of the Convention until a prima facie case is made out against them and they are indicted of war crimes. When prisoners of war lose the benefits of the Convention, the Protecting Power should be informed.

(ii) Prisoners of war indicted of war crimes and thus

losing the benefits of the Convention should be covered by some international protection based on treaty stipulations which guarantee them:

(a) fair treatment, so that they may be in a

condition to plead their case;