Israel opens fire on Gaza aid flotilla; at least 10 dead, 60 wounded

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/jun/05/flotilla-raid-henning-mankell-diary?CMP=twt_gu

 

On board the plane, the air hostess gives me a pair of socks. Because mine were stolen by one of the commandos who attacked the boat I was on.

 

The myth of the brave and utterly infallible Israeli soldier is shattered. Now we can add: they are common thieves. For I was not the only one to be robbed of my money, credit card, clothes, MP3 player, laptop; the same happened to many others on the same ship as me, which was attacked early one morning by masked Israeli soldiers, who were thus in fact nothing other than lying pirates.

 

Henning Mankell disagrees. Angrily. Socks!

 

Perhaps the pictures that were published were ones that got through without the IDF noticing -- it's not that hard to hide an SD card, considering how small they are.

[mooeypoo]

Then where are the pictures (the not-favorable-to-Israel-at-all pictures) coming from, if Israel stole everything and deleted everything?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Not quite everything?

 

The pictures could be from just one camera. There were 600 people on the boat; there was more than one camera. And I'm fairly certain that nothing short of a full body cavity search could find a SD card if you reeaally wanted to hide it.

[mooeypoo]

Not quite everything?

 

The pictures could be from just one camera. There were 600 people on the boat; there was more than one camera. And I'm fairly certain that nothing short of a full body cavity search could find a SD card if you reeaally wanted to hide it.

Unless someone hid it in their rear cavity, an SD card would be found in a thorough search. But Israel is publishing pictures and also pictures are coming from other sources - video and stills - so it seems that even *if* the IDF tried to hide evidence, it's doing a shitty job.

[padren]

Paul McGeogh was an Australian journalist aboard one of the ships in the flotilla.

 

When they were boarded, he and another journalist stated to the soldiers who they were, showed their credentials, and yet were treated as terrorists.

They were tazered, had their cameras etc taken from them and evidence/footage destroyed.

 

I haven't looked into that too much, or what would be expected in those situations. Israel appears to be often overly harsh in their methods, but my main concern is the issue of what happened on the boat where the people died. How they treat reporters is another story.

 

You can read Mr. McGeogh's account here:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/prayers-tear-gas-and-terror-20100603-x7ew.html?autostart=1

"Some of the people caught the first commando before he touched the deck – a few started to hit him, but a lot of people moved in to shelter him with their bodies," the cameraman said. "Another soldier with a bleeding nose was brought in ... a few people threw punches, but not as many as I would have expected."

 

Matthias Gardel, a leader of the Swedish Palestinian support group, confirmed the soldiers had been beaten, but insisted those involved were unarmed and in keeping with the ship's non-violent charter, the soldiers' weapons were thrown overboard.

If you read a paragraph above the one you quoted:

There were conflicting accounts of the first commando landing – some activists said he was injured and was being carried inside the ship for treatment by the flotilla doctors. However, a Serbian cameraman, Srojan Stojiljkovic, said some of the activists had armed themselves with lengths of chain and metal posts that had served as cordons around the ship's lifeboats.

In addition, there is this:

 

....amid tension sparked several hours earlier when the six ships' captains in the Free Gaza Flotilla rejected a demand radioed by the Israeli navy – change course away from the Gaza Strip or be confronted with lethal force.

 

When a friend of mine was on tour in Iraq, he was on patrol in an armored vehicle manning the "big gun" at the top. An Iraqi child about 12 yrs old was riding his bike and entirely unaware of their vehicle, and he was yelling loudly to the child to turn. The child did not look like he was carrying explosives or anything that would be a threat, but they have to maintain a perimeter around their vehicle and open fire on anyone or anything that fails to adhere requests to stay back and breeches the safety line.

He kept yelling trying to get the kid's attention on the load busy street and the kid looked up finally and realized where he was and backed off - but you imagine being in that position?

I know I'd be sick and loaded with adrenaline, but what can you do? You are required to open fire if a certain distance is breached.

 

To me the sickest thing about warfare and military engagements is that situations such as the one with the 12 yr old will happen, and they will not always turn out like this. It's a horrible affair, it's imprecise and it's impossible to count on "clean results" from any specific engagement or only "the bad guys" get shot or suppressed and "the good guys" are able to distinguish "the innocent" and protect them.

That's a cold fact, but what really bothers me is when people act in total disregard and with no respect for this fact - "change course away from the Gaza Strip or be confronted with lethal force." is not just the words of some bullies intent on pushing them around, it's a plea to avoid a very likely messy and tragic confrontation.

For combatants to choose to ignore such pleas is unfortunate but understandable but for peaceful protesters it's an absolute disregard for human life. If that's how little they value human life - fine. But then to claim outrage and surprise at the subsequent events that resulted ranges from absolute unforgivable ignorance to blatant hypocrisy.

 

Military forces are rarely out there to be bullies and kick "the little guys" around. They are doing what they have to because it's the least worst option available, and they do it solemnly and which as much precision as they can to try and avoid the loss of life that haunts them as much as any other human being. To so blatantly and dismissively limit their options to the point that "no-contact boarding and control" is their only one and then condemning them for it honestly sickens me.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Regarding the confiscation and return of videos and equipment:

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ioi_0jtO9RjMwPNRoXNCndRPRq3gD9G3T8FG0

 

JERUSALEM — Israel's military is using video confiscated from people on the Gaza-bound aid flotilla to justify opening fire during its deadly raid on the ships, drawing sharp criticism Thursday from foreign correspondents who say some of the footage was shot by journalists.

 

[...]

 

Army spokeswoman Avital Leibovich said there was "a certain chance" the footage was filmed by journalists, but that most was filmed by activists. She said no material was confiscated. She said it was found on the vessel after activists were cleared off by the army.

(in a hurry, of course, so they didn't have time to take their stuff with them)

 

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51737

 

One of the first targets of Israeli commandos raiding the FG flotilla was the international media. Photographers were attacked, and journalists had their video, audio and other communications equipment confiscated. The equipment has still not been returned.

 

"It was clear that Israel wanted to control the media coverage of the situation from the very beginning," Huwaida Arraf, FG’s chairwoman, told IPS.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/jun/04/press-freedom-israel

 

The Committee to Protect Journalists has denounced Israel's editing and distribution of footage confiscated from foreign journalists aboard the Gaza-bound flotilla.

 

The New York-based press watchdog accuses the Israeli defence force of releasing edited portions of confiscated video on YouTube that fail to get across the reality.

 

It refers to claims by the Foreign Press Association in Israel that the military "is selectively using footage to bolster its claims that commandos opened fire only after being attacked."

 

The CPJ has called on the Israeli government to return all equipment, notes, and footage confiscated from journalists.

[padren]

Unless someone hid it in their rear cavity, an SD card would be found in a thorough search. But Israel is publishing pictures and also pictures are coming from other sources - video and stills - so it seems that even *if* the IDF tried to hide evidence, it's doing a shitty job.

 

I had the same thought but when did they loose satellite? I heard they were streaming video live up to a point, and could have gotten some file-uploads through for the still frames.

 

It's also conceivable they managed to hide some SD cards on the ship, I don't know if they had unfettered access to it since the event though.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Military forces are rarely out there to be bullies and kick "the little guys" around. They are doing what they have to because it's the least worst option available, and they do it solemnly and which as much precision as they can to try and avoid the loss of life haunts them as much as any other human being. To so blatantly and dismissively limit their options to the point that "no-contact boarding and control" is their only one and then condemning them for it honestly sickens me.

 

That's not the only issue people have with the attack, though. One account I read stated that the Israeli forces had not been trained in the crowd-control weapons they used -- paintball guns and Tasers. Others have suggested that riot police should have been sent in instead of a commando unit.

 

The majority of the objections in this thread, however, center around the blockade itself, and whether it is legal and effective against Hamas. Without the blockade, there'd be no need for this assault.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I had the same thought but when did they loose satellite? I heard they were streaming video live up to a point, and could have gotten some file-uploads through for the still frames.

What I read stated that the IDF jammed their satellite phones and such.

[padren]

But why is the IDF saying this instead of the protesters? It'd be a brilliant excuse for the violence -- "that wasn't us!" Instead, they've said that Israel fired first as their excuse.

 

That would justify the Israeli response, and the view that the Israeli response was "unjustifiable" (as opposed to simply botched) has done more to undermine the blockade they are protesting than any of the peaceful protests to date.

 

So far many of the individuals on the ship have said (as in the link from Double K) that the activists did start attacking the soldiers first, while others pleaded with them to stop. If they were "infiltrators" they wouldn't be easily identified as such, and they could just as easily be activists who were willing to resort to violence. Detailed background investigations would be needed to actually demonstrate affiliations/activities that suggested they may have organized with such intent, but even that would most likely be circumstantial.

[mooeypoo]

I had the same thought but when did they loose satellite? I heard they were streaming video live up to a point, and could have gotten some file-uploads through for the still frames.

 

It's also conceivable they managed to hide some SD cards on the ship, I don't know if they had unfettered access to it since the event though.

No, I *SERIOUSLY* doubt the military broadcasted this live via satellite.

 

But anyways, the ships are still in Israel port - they're being emptied of the humanitarian aid. So whatever was taken, was on the persons. Sure, it might be something that the military missed, but Israel is known for being quite good in security checks of luggage and people, and it sounds weird to me that they've seemed to miss so many.

 

In any case, pictures *are* being release, and not all of them are doing good to Israel.. so it doesn't make sense to me that the IDF went to all this trouble of censoring but released damaging pictures?

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No, I *SERIOUSLY* doubt the military broadcasted this live via satellite.

The activists had live satellite video feeds set up, not the IDF.

[mooeypoo]

The activists had live satellite video feeds set up, not the IDF.

Oh, where can I find the (hopefully recorded?) feeds? Anyone recorded that? I'd love to see those, actually... hadn't seen those online.... ?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Oh, where can I find the (hopefully recorded?) feeds? Anyone recorded that? I'd love to see those, actually... hadn't seen those online.... ?

 

...the IDF jammed their satellite feeds, so I doubt there's much of interest online.

[padren]

That's not the only issue people have with the attack, though. One account I read stated that the Israeli forces had not been trained in the crowd-control weapons they used -- paintball guns and Tasers. Others have suggested that riot police should have been sent in instead of a commando unit.

I agree entirely. It appears a lot of Israel agrees too, they are drawing significant heat internally for how this was handled. When they had to go in they messed it up. I don't disagree with that at all. The only real points I disagree with is the characterization of the ships as a "peace movement" that were victims of Israeli force.

 

They did not handle the situation well, but they tried to avoid the situation as much as they could. It was forced upon them by the flotilla, and then they were forced to defend themselves.

The majority of the objections in this thread, however, center around the blockade itself, and whether it is legal and effective against Hamas. Without the blockade, there'd be no need for this assault.

 

Debates such as "should the military enforce policy [x]" are good and I think the discussion with regards to the blockade is quite worthwhile. What bothers me is when people suggest that the actions taken by the flotilla are justified because the blockade is not.

 

I think there are many things wrongs with the blockade. It should be reexamined. I do however take serious issue with breaking an active blockade as a means to dissolve it, if those attempting to break it claim any respect for human life.

 

To clarify:

 

1) Peaceful protests attempting to break a blockade are understandable for the most part as long as they agree to and then do surrender and use passive resistance when boarded. It is still a risk to human life, but far less than actually attempting to breech an active blockade against naval vessels.

 

2) Hostile engagement with any military should be expected to result in loss of life. Safety, even that of observers or innocent non-combatants is stressed and striven for, but cannot be guaranteed.

 

 

What I read stated that the IDF jammed their satellite phones and such.

I have no idea how effective such technologies are, with enough error correction to resent corrupt packets it's conceivable a few megabytes could get through over a period of time, but I really don't know if that is realistic.

I'm curious about this too.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

No, I *SERIOUSLY* doubt the military broadcasted this live via satellite.

 

No no, I didn't mean that!

I was curious as to when the live feeds from the flotilla were cut, and whether they got any photos out before being subdued.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I have no idea how effective such technologies are, with enough error correction to resent corrupt packets it's conceivable a few megabytes could get through over a period of time, but I really don't know if that is realistic.

I'm curious about this too.

I'd imagine it's easy to overpower a digital satellite transmission; digital transmissions tend to drop out pretty fast once the transmission quality gets too low. (Digital shortwave radio, for example, has high-quality audio, but a shorter range because the digital audio becomes impossible to decode once there's too much noise.)

 

I doubt the manufacturers really anticipate jamming, anyway.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I agree entirely. It appears a lot of Israel agrees too, they are drawing significant heat internally for how this was handled. When they had to go in they messed it up. I don't disagree with that at all. The only real points I disagree with is the characterization of the ships as a "peace movement" that were victims of Israeli force.

 

They did not handle the situation well, but they tried to avoid the situation as much as they could. It was forced upon them by the flotilla, and then they were forced to defend themselves.

 

True. Some have argued that the Israelis fired first, and so the flotilla defended themselves against the IDF justifiably, but I can't imagine anyone thinking they can defend themselves successfully against trained men with guns by using metal bars and pointed sticks. All you're going to do is get shot a few more times.

 

But again, it'd be nice to know what really happened.

[padren]

True. Some have argued that the Israelis fired first, and so the flotilla defended themselves against the IDF justifiably, but I can't imagine anyone thinking they can defend themselves successfully against trained men with guns by using metal bars and pointed sticks. All you're going to do is get shot a few more times.

 

But again, it'd be nice to know what really happened.

 

I agree entirely. If the IDF did fire on the flotilla first before boarding I can understand why they would take up arms. I could even understand if they thought they were being fired on mistakenly - one person misreads a sound among the noise, tension and confusion and says "they're shooting!" or even just says that to describe the paintball fire and next thing you know people are under the impression they are taking live fire. That's part of the confusion that happens in warfare.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I agree entirely. If the IDF did fire on the flotilla first before boarding I can understand why they would take up arms. I could even understand if they thought they were being fired on mistakenly - one person misreads a sound among the noise, tension and confusion and says "they're shooting!" or even just says that to describe the paintball fire and next thing you know people are under the impression they are taking live fire. That's part of the confusion that happens in warfare.

 

One account I read (I've read so many that I have no idea where it was) commented that an officer on one of the IDF boats approaching the Marmara fired three shots from his handgun into the air, as a warning or something. Easy enough to hear that and say "they're shooting at us!"

[Mr Skeptic]

As promised, there is an answer with an official response from COGAT:

The most recent ship carrying supplies to Gaza docked at the port of Ashdod on Saturday, bringing the total number of aid-carrying vessels to seven in the last week. Israel is delivering the goods aboard the ships using the same channels which 100 trucks full of aid enter Gaza daily.

 

Due to the fact that the thousands of tons of aid, including cement, must first be offloaded onto trucks from the boats, not all of the aid has been delivered yet. This process, which includes screening goods for weapons, takes time. The maximum capacity for a truck is roughly 25 tons, so while only 45 trucks have been prepped and loaded, it is still a great amount of aid.

 

Unfortunately, Hamas is currently refusing entry to trucks which are waiting at the Kerem Shalom border crossing. As Hamas has a history of hijacking aid, it is vital that Israel is assured that construction materials are going to be used for peaceful, civilian purposes. To that end, we are working with the humanitarian organizations in Gaza that can insure that all cement, construction materials, and other aid will go to humanitarian projects.

 

The rumors that Israel is not letting in cement are categorically false.

Our goal is to make sure the aid is distributed to the people. While distribution would normally be the role of the government, the “government” of Gaza is a terrorist organization whose declared mission is the destruction of the State of Israel. While we will not let Hamas build bunkers and military sites, we will also not allow the people of Gaza to go without adequate supplies. With our partners in the international community, we will make sure that the goods are distributed to the people of Gaza.

 

We are working as hard as we can to offload all supplies and send them to Gaza. Please stay tuned for future updates.

(emphasis mine)

 

Source: http://www.israelpolitik.org/2010/06/07/status-update-aid-prepped-for-delivery-to-gazans/

 

So, all aid will get into Gaza, it just takes time to unload 7 fairly large ships onto trucks. And, Hamas is apparently stopping the shipments into the strip. I hope that the humanitarian organizations will take control here - the cement will be sent to their hands, if they state they are able to control it.

 

~moo

 

Didn't you say earlier that 25 tons of cement had made it into Gaza? Was that since the start of the blockade, or the first shipment from this flotilla? Because I get the impression that allowing in the cement from the flotilla will far exceed any cement that had been allowed in previously.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The accounts from journalists that I've read have said that the recordings were confiscated by the IDF, as well as their cameras, computers, etc. Henning Mankell (Swedish novelist) also says they stole his socks.

 

As for the socks, I suspect they were returned to the wrong person. Stealing socks seems like a really dumb thing to do.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

In addition, there is this:

 

....amid tension sparked several hours earlier when the six ships' captains in the Free Gaza Flotilla rejected a demand radioed by the Israeli navy – change course away from the Gaza Strip or be confronted with lethal force.

 

That doesn't seem like it would be legal. The use of lethal force is only supposed to be authorized if they resist being boarded, if I understand things correctly.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

As for the socks, I suspect they were returned to the wrong person. Stealing socks seems like a really dumb thing to do.

Well, he says they stole everything else, too:

 

Now we can add: they are common thieves. For I was not the only one to be robbed of my money, credit card, clothes, MP3 player, laptop; the same happened to many others on the same ship as me, which was attacked early one morning by masked Israeli soldiers, who were thus in fact nothing other than lying pirates.

[Double K]

Just in response to the questions as to whether Israel confiscated footage or not;

 

http://www.smh.com.au/world/the-photos-they-didnt-want-seen-20100603-x7ex.html

 

AS THE assault began I started shooting, rotating my six memory cards regularly to reduce the risk of losing them.

 

What we were seeing was unbelievable and I wanted to make sure the images survived so the story could be told.

 

I took hundreds of photos....

 

....With satellite communication jammed there was no way to transmit the images so I used gaffer tape to hide the micro SD cards on my body and in my clothes.

 

Most of the Israeli boats sped away but a Zodiac stopped beside our boat and the commandos boarded.

 

I was knocked to the ground, perhaps by a stun gun. I got up and a soldier lunged towards me and snatched my camera.

 

Despite numerous searches, including a strip search, I saved three cards. The Israelis found three in my clothing, but I hung on to the others - two on my body and one in some personal gear.

[Mr Skeptic]

As for the head shots, it seems that when the IDF kills someone they stay dead:

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51737

The IDF has a "confirm kill" policy where even after a person (who is considered a danger to the life of a soldier or other Israelis) is neutralised by several bullets, a final shot is fired into the head at close range to "confirm the kill".

[mooeypoo]

Didn't you say earlier that 25 tons of cement had made it into Gaza? Was that since the start of the blockade, or the first shipment from this flotilla? Because I get the impression that allowing in the cement from the flotilla will far exceed any cement that had been allowed in previously.

I'm not sure. I think it's since the beginning of the year. I will check.

 

In any case, yes, there's no doubt this will be the biggest amount of cement into Gaza, if the international aid organizations will take responsibility on it and not let Hamas steal that too.

 

As for the socks, I suspect they were returned to the wrong person. Stealing socks seems like a really dumb thing to do.

Yeah, seriously, there's no doubt there was a lot of screwups on both sides, but I don't see any reason to think the IDF stole things from people -specially in such a high-profile incidence. It's much more likely that things were taken for a security check and the amount of people caused some mixups. I used to work in ELAL Security in the airport, we had flights of ~400 people and it can be very messy. We took precautions, but sometimes that's very hard to do. Here, *all* bags were checked and there were a LOT more than 400 people to check (only the last ship had 600 people in it.. think how many were in all of them together).

 

I am leaning towards "****up" as the logical reason here, rather than some malicious theft that makes little sense in a high-profile situation.

 

That doesn't seem like it would be legal. The use of lethal force is only supposed to be authorized if they resist being boarded, if I understand things correctly.

No, we have the recordings (some of them are posted online) - the thread wasn't that they will meet lethal force, the threat was that they will be stopped. It wasn't the plan to use lethal force; if it would've been the plan, the soldiers would've been sent to the ship with actual lethal weapons rather than paintball guns.

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

As for the head shots, it seems that when the IDF kills someone they stay dead:

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51737

The IDF has a "confirm kill" policy where even after a person (who is considered a danger to the life of a soldier or other Israelis) is neutralised by several bullets, a final shot is fired into the head at close range to "confirm the kill".

Honestly, in this particular case, I doubt this was a 'confirm kill' situation. First, it's now illegal in Israel, but also in order to confirm a kill you need to have control over the situation (to go back to the dead person and confirm.. the kill..). These wounds and these accounts, and according to the various accounts of the events and the relative chaos that was there, I really don't think the soldiers had time to confirm their kills. What is more likely, is that they reacted instinctively, and for a Commando soldier, that means 4 consecutive-quick-shots instead of single-shots when firing. That sounds much more plausible to me than confirming the kill in the middle of a situation where the soldiers clearly lost control.

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

No, we have the recordings (some of them are posted online) - the thread wasn't that they will meet lethal force, the threat was that they will be stopped. It wasn't the plan to use lethal force; if it would've been the plan, the soldiers would've been sent to the ship with actual lethal weapons rather than paintball guns.

 

Right, but that doesn't stop incompetent or malicious journalists from saying so, nor other silly people from repeating it.

[mooeypoo]

Right, but that doesn't stop incompetent or malicious journalists from saying so, nor other silly people from repeating it.

Indeed. It seems the PR war is bigger than the actual war on the ground.

[Double K]

The IDF has a "confirm kill" policy where even after a person (who is considered a danger to the life of a soldier or other Israelis) is neutralised by several bullets, a final shot is fired into the head at close range to "confirm the kill". [/indent]

http://www.iccnow.org/documents/Canada.CrAgH.WcrEng.pdf

"crime against humanity" means murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, persecution or any other inhumane act or omission that is committed against any civilian population or any identifiable group and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes a crime against humanity according to customary international law or conventional international law or by virtue of its being criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.

 

 

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following

provisions:

 

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

 

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

© outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

 

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

 

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

 

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

 

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

 

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

 

furthermore

 

Art. 32. The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.

 

Art. 38. With the exception of special measures authorized by the present Convention, in particularly by Article 27 and 41 thereof, the situation of protected persons shall continue to be regulated, in principle, by the provisions concerning aliens in time of peace. In any case, the following

rights shall be granted to them:

 

(1) they shall be enabled to receive the individual or collective relief that may be sent to them.

(2) they shall, if their state of health so requires, receive medical attention and hospital treatment to the same extent as the nationals of the State concerned.

(3) they shall be allowed to practise their religion and to receive spiritual assistance from ministers of their faith.

(4) if they reside in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war, they shall be authorized to move from that area to the same extent as the nationals of the State concerned.

 

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Double K