MAY-09-22~4

14:~?

••

REPORT 01' THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE Rca CROSS (leRe)
ON THE TREA TMENT llY THE COALITION FORCES OF PRISONERS OF WAR
AND OTHER PROTECTED PERSONS BY THf GENEVA CONVENTIONS IN IRAO
DURING ARREST, INTERNMENT AND INTERROGATION
1'1'8RUAltY 2004

u~

MAY-0S-2004

.

14;47
,

1".02

Executive Summary
Introduction

1.

Treatment during arrest

1.1

Notification to families and inrormation for arreSlees

2.

Treatment during transfer and initial custody

3.

Treatment during interrogation

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
35

Methods of iII·treatment
Military Intelligence section, Abu Ghraib Correctional Facility
Umm Qasr (JFIl) and Camp Bucca (JIFIICE)
Previous action laken by the (CRC in 2003 on lhe issue of treatment
Allegations of iII~treatmenl by the Iraqi police

4.

TreatlT1ent in regular intl/rnment facilities

4.1

General conditions of treatment

4.2 "High Value Detainees" section. Baghdad Intemalional Airport
5.

Disproportionate and excelJlIive use of force 8g8imlt persons deprived of
their liberty by the detaining 8IJtho,Itieli

6.

Seil-Ure and confiscation of personal belongings of persons d",prived of
their liberty

7.

Exposure of persons deprived of thoir liberty

9.

Protection of pArsons depriVed Of their liberty againllt shelling

to danger tallks

..

MRY-0~-2004

.

~

14:47

P.03

EXECUTIVE SUMMARV
In its "Report on the Treatment by the Coalition Forces of Prisoners of War and other
protected pe(l;ons in Iraq", the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
draws the attention of the Coalition Forces (hereafter called "the CF") to a number of
serious violations of International Humanitarian Law. These violations have been
documented and sometimes observed while visitlng prisoners of war, civilian
internees and other protected persons by the Geneva Conventions (hereafter called
persons deprived of their libeny when their status is not spl;!cifically mentioned) in
Iraq between March and November 2003. During its visits to places of internment of
the CF, the leRC collected allegations during private interviews .....ith persons
deprived of their liberty relating to the treatment by the CF of protected persons
during their capture, arrest, transfer, internment and interrogation.
The main violations, which are described in the leRC report and presented
confidentially to the CF, include:
•
•

I

•
•
•

Brutality against protected perlions upon capture and initial custody. sometimes
causing death or serious injury
Absence ot nolificatiM of arrest of persons deprived of their liberty to their
families causing distress among persons deprived of their liberty and their families
Physical or pSyChOlogical coercion during interrogation to secure information
Prolonged solitary confinement in cells devoid of daylight
Excessive and disproportionate use of force against persons deprived of their
liberty resulting in death or injury during their period of internment

Serious problems of conduct by the CF affecting persons deprived of their liberty arQ
also presented in the repon:
•
•
•

Seizure and confiscation of private belongings of persons deprived of their liberty
Exposure of persons deprived of tlleir liberty to dangerous tasks
Holding persons deprived of their liberty in dangerous places where they are not
protected from shelling

According to allegations collected by ICRG delegates during private interviews with
persons deprived of their libtlrty, ill-treatment during capture was frequent. While
certain Circumstances might require defensive precautions and tile use of force on
the part of battle group units, the ICRG collected allegations of ill-treatment following
capture Which took place in Baghdad, Basrah, Ramadi and Tikrit, indicating a
consistent pattern with respect to times and places of brutal behavior during arres!.
The repetition of such behavior by CF appeared to go beyond the reasonable,
legitimate and proportional use of forCI;! required to apprehend suspects or restrain
persons resisting arrest or capture, and seemed to reflect a usual modus operandi by
certain CF battle group units.
According to thl;! ~lIegations c.ollected by thl;! JeRC, ill-treatment dUring interrogation
was nol systematic, except With regard 10 persons arrested in connection wilh
suspected security offences or deemed to have an "intelligence" value. In these
caSes, p~rso~s depriv~d of th.eir liberty und'7r supervision of the Military Intelligence
were at high risk of being subjected to a variety of harsll treatments ranging from

..

MAY-09-2004

14:48

P.IJ'l

insults threats and humiliations to both physical and psychological coercion, which in
some! ~ses was tantamount to torture, in order to force cooperation with their
i"terrogators.
The IGRG also started to document what appeared to be Widespread abuse of power
and ill-treatment by the Iraqi pol1c(I Which is under the responsibility of the
Occupying Powers, inCluding threats to hand over persons in their custOdy to the CF
so as to extort money from them, effective hand over of such persons to the custody
of the CF on allegedly fake accusations, or invoking CF orders or instructions to
mistreat persons deprived of their liberty during interrogation.
In the case of the "High Value Detainees" held in Baghdad International Airport. their
continued internment, several months after Ineir arrest, in strict solitary
confinamcnt in cells devoid of sunlight for nearly 23 houl1) a day constituted a
serious violation of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions.
The leRC was also concerned about the excessive and disproportionate use of
foreo by some detaining authorities against persons deprived of their liberty inVolved
during their Internment during periods of unrest or escape attempts that caused
death and serious injuries. The use of firearms against persons deprived of their
liberty in circumstances where methods without using firearms could have yielded the
same result could amount to a serious violation of International Humanitarian Law.
The leRe reviewed a number of incidents of shootings of persons deprived of their
liberty with live bullets, which have resulted In deaths or injuries during periods of
unrest related to conditions of internment or escape attempts. Investigations initiated
by the CF into these incidents conCluded that the use of firearms against persons
deprived of their liberty was legitimate. However, non-lethal measures could have
been used to obtain the same results and quell the demonstrations or neutralize
persons depriVed of their liberty trying to escape.
Since the beginning of the confiict, the ICRG has regular1y brought its concerns to the
attention of the CF. The observations in the present report are consistent with those
made earlier on several occasions orally <md in writing to the CF throughout 2003. In
spite of some improvements in the material conditions of internment. allegations of i11~
treatment perpetrated by members of the GF against persons deprived of their liberty
continued to be collected by the IGRG and thus suggested that the use of illtreatment against persons deprived of their liberty went beyond exceptional cases
and might be considered as a practice tolerated by the CF.
The ICRe report does not aim to be exhaustive with regard to breaches of
International Hurnanitarian Law by the CF in Iraq. Rather, it illustrates priority areas
that warrant attention and corrective action on the part of CF, in compliance with their
International Humanitarian Law obligations.
Consequently the ICRC asks the authorities of the CF in Iraq:
to respect at all times the human dignity, physical integrity and cultural
sensitiVity of the persons deprived of their liberty held under their control
to set up a system of notifications of arrest to ensure qUick and accurate
transmission of information to the families of persons deprived of their liberty

MAY-09-2004

-

14:48

to prevent all forms of ill-treatment. moral or physical coercion of persons
deprived of their liberty in relation to interrogation
to set up an internment regime which ensures the respect of the psychological
integritY and human dignity of the persons deprived of their liberty
to ensure that all persons deprived of their liberty are allowed sufficient time
every day outsidl;l in the sunlight. and that they are allowed to move and
exercise in the outside yard
to define and apply regulations and sanctions compatible with International
Humanitarian Law and to ensure that persons deprived of their liberty are fully
informed upon arrival about such regUlations and sanctions
to thoroughly investigate violations of International Humanitarian Law in order
to determine responsibilities and prosecute those found responsible for
violations of International Humanitarian Law
to ensure that battle group units arresting individuals and staff in charge of
internment facilities receive adequate training enabling them to operate in a
proper manner and fulfill their responsibilities as arresting authority Without
resorting to ill-treatment or making excessive use offorce.

INTRODUCTION

MAY-09-2004

14:48

1. The International Committee of the Red Cross (leRG) is mandated by the High
Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions to monitor the full application of al"ld
respect for me Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of
persons deprived of their liberty. The ICRC reminds the High Contracting Parties
concerned, usually in a confidential way, of their humanitarian Obligations under all
four Geneva Conventions, in particular the Third al"ld Fourth Geneva Conventions as
far as the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty is concerned and under
Protocol I of 1977 additional to the Geneva Conventions, confirmed and reaffirmed
rules of customary law and universally acknowledged principles of humanity.
The information contained in this report is based on allegations collected by the ICRC
in private interviews with persons deprived of their liberty during its visits to places of
internment of the Coalition Forces (CF) between March and November 2003. The
allegations have been thoroughly revised in order to present this report as factually
as possible. The report is also based on other accounts given either by fellow
persons deprived of their liberty inside internment facilities or by family members.
During this period, the leRC conducted some 29 visits in 14 internment racilities in
the central and southern parts of the r;;ol,Jntry. The testimonies were collected in
Camp Cropper (Core Holding Area, Military Intelligence section, "High Value
Detainees" section); AI-Salihlyye. Tasferat and AI-Russafa prisons; Abu Ghraib
Correctional Facility (including Camp Vigilant and the "Military Intelligence" section);
Umm Oasr and Camp Bucca, as well as several temporary internment places such
as Tallil Trans-shipmant Place, Camp Condar, Amarah Camp al"ld the Field Hospital
In Shaibah.
The ICRC oonditions for visits to persons deprived of their liberty in internment
facilities are common for all countries where the organization operates. They can be
expressed as follows:
•

The ICRC must have access to all persons deprived of their liberty who come
within its mandate in their place of internment
• The ICRG must be able to talk freely and in private with the pe~ons deprived
of their liberty of its Choice and to register their identity
• The ICRC must be authorized to repeat its visits to the pe~ons deprived of
their liberty
• The leRC must be notified of arrests. transfers and releases by the detaining
authorities
Each visit to persons deprived oftheir liberty is carried out in accordance with
ICRC's working procedures expressed as fallows:
•

•

At the .beginning of each visit, the ICRC delegates Speak With the detaining
authOrities to present the leRC's mandate and the purpose of the visit as well
as to obtain general information on internment conditions total of interned
population and movements of persons deprived of their liberty (release arrest
transfer, death, hospitalization).
'
•
The ICRC delegates, accompanied by the detaining authorities tour the
internment premises_

P.06

MAY-Q9-2QQ4

14'49

•

The leRG delegates hold private interviews with persons of their choice who
are deprived of their liberty, with no time limit In a place freely chosen and if
necessary register them.
• At the end of each visi~ the delegates hold a final talk with the detaining
authorities to inform them about the leRC's findings and recommendations.

2.
The aim of the repllrt is to present information collected by the IGRG
concerning the treatment of prisoners of war by the CF, civilian internees and other
protected persons deprived of their liberty during the process of arrest, transfer,
internment and interrogation.
3.
The main places of internment where mistreatment allegedly took place
included battle group unit stations; the military intelligence sections of Camp Cropper
and Abu Ghraib Correctional Facility; AI-Baghdadi, Heat Bese and Habbania Camp
in Ramadi governorate: Tikrit holding area (former Saddam Hussein Islamic School);
a former train station in AI·Khal'm, near the Syrian border, turn~d into a military base;
the Ministry of Defense and Presidential Palace in Baghdad. the former mukhabarat
office in Basrah. as well as several Iraqi polloe stations in Baghdad.
4.
In most cases. the allegations of ill-treatment referred to acts that occurred
prior to the internment of persons deprived of their liberty in regular internment
facilities, while they were in the custody of arresting authorities or military and civilian
intelilgenoe personnel. When persons deprived of their liberty were transferred 10
regular internment facilities, such as lhose administered by the military police, where
the behavior of guards was strictly supervised, ill-treatment of the type described in
this report usually ceased. In these places, violations of provisions of International
Humanitarian Law relating to thelreatment of persons deprived of their liberty were a
result of the generally poor standard of internment conditions (long term internment in
unsuitable temporary facilities) or of the use of what appeared to be excessive force
to quell unrest or to prellent attempted escapes.
1.

TREATMENT DURING ARREST

5.
Protected persons interviewed by leRC delegates halle described a fairly
consistent pattern with respect to times and places of brutality by members of the CF
arresting them.
6.
Arrests as described in these allegations lended to follow a pattern. Arresting
authorities entered houses usually after darK, breaKing down doors, waking up
residents roughly, yelling orders, forcing family members Into one room under military
guard While searching the rest of the house and further breaking doors. cabinets and
other property. They arrested suspects, tying their hands in the back with flexl-cUffs,
hooding them, and taKing them away. Sometimes they arrested all adult males
present in a house, including elderly. handicapped or sick people. Treatment often
I~cl~ded pushl~~ people around. i.nsultlng, laking aim with rifles, punching and
kicking and stnkmg With rifles. Individuals were often led away in whatever they
happened to be wearing at the time of arrest - sometimes in pyjarT1as or underwearand were denied the opportunity 10 gather a few essential belongings, sueh as
clothing, hygiene items, medicine or eyeglasses. Those who surrendered with a

P.07

NRY-09-200~

1~:~9

suitcase often had their belongings confiscated. In many cases personal belongings
were seized during the arrest, with no receipt being issued (see section 6, be/owr
7.
Certain OF military intelligence officef'$ told the leRe that in their estimate
between 70% and 90% of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been
arrested by mistake. They also attributed the brutality of some arrests to the lack of
proper supervision of battle group units.

8.
In accordance with provisions of International Humanitarian Law which oblige
the CF to treat prisoners of war and other protected persons humanely and to protect
Ihem against acts of violence, threats thereof. intimidation and insults (Art 1J. 14,17,
87, Third Geneva Convention; Art. 5, 27, 31,32, 33 Fourtll Geneva Convention), the
leRe asks the authorities of CF to respect at all times the human dignity, physical
integrity and culluml sensitivity of the persons deprived of their liberty held under
their con/rol. The ICRe also asks the authorities of CF 10 ensure thaI battle group
units arresting individuals receive adequate training enabling them to operate in a
proper mannar and fulflil/heir responsibilities without resorting /0 brutality or using
exoessive force.
1.1

Notification to families and information for arrestees

9.
In almost all instances documented by the JCRC, arresting authorities
provided no information about who they were, where their base WaS located, nor did
they explain the cause of arrest. Similarly. they rarely informed the arrestee or his
family where he was being taken and for how long. resulting in the de tacto
"disappearance" of the arrestee for weeks or even months untit contact was finally
made.
10.
When arrests were made in Ihe streets, along the roads, or at checkpoints,
families were not informed about What had happened to the arrestees until they
managed to trace them or received neWS about them through persons who had been
deprived of their liberty but were later released, visiting family members of fellow
persons deprived of their liberty, or ICRC Red Cross Messages. In the absence of a
system to notify the families of the Whereabouts of their arrested relatives, many
were left without news for months, often fearing that their relatives unaccounted for
were dead.
11.
Nine months into the present conflict, there is still no satisfactorily functioning
system of notification to the families of captured or arrested persons, even though
hundreds of arrests continue to be carried out every week. While the main places of
internment (Camp Bucca and Abu Ghraib) are part of a centralized notification
system through the Nationallnformaticm Bureau (and their data are forwarded
G::
electronically to the leRe on a regular basis), other places of internment such a5
MO$$ul or Tikrit are not. Notifications from those places therefore depend solely on
capture or internment cards as stipulated by the Third and Fourth Geneva
Conventions,
Since March 2003 capture cards have often been filled out carelessly, resulting in
unnecessary delays of several weeks or months before families were notified, and
sometimes resulting in no notification at all. It is the responsibility of the detaining

I

MAY-09-2004

,,

14:49

authority to see to it that each capture Dr internment card is carefully filled out so that
the leRG is in a position to effectively deliver them to families, The current system of
General Information Genters (GIG), set up under the responsibility of the
Humanitarian Assistance Coordination Centers (HAGC). while an improvement,
remains inadequat!!, as families outside the main towns do not have access to them,
lists made available are not complete and often outdated and do not reflect the
frequent transfers from one place of intemment to another. In the absence of a better
alternative, the IGRC's delivery of accurate capture cards remains the most reliable.
prompt and effeclive system to notify the families, prOVided cards are properly filled
OUt.

The leRe has raised this issue repeatedly with the detaining authorities since March
2003, inclUding at the highest level of the CF" in August 2003. Despite some
improvement, hundreds of families have had to wait anxiously for weeks and
sometimes months before learning of the Whereabouts of their arrested family
members. Many families travel for weeks throughout the country from one place of
internment to another in search of their relatives and often come to learn about their
whereabouts informally (through released detainees) or when the person deprived of
hIs liberty is released and returns home.

12. Similarly, transfers, cases of sickness althe time of arrest, deaths, escapes or
repatriations continue to be notified only insufficiently or are not notified at all by tne
CF to the families in spite of their obligation to do so under International
Humanitarian Law.
In accordance with provisions of both th~ Third Geneva Convention (Art. 70,
122, 123) and the Fourth Geneva Convenlion (Art. 106, 136, 137, 138, 140), the
JeRC reminds Ihe CF of Iheir treaty-based obligation to notify promptly the femilies of
all prisoners of war and other protected persons captured or arrested by them. Within
one week, prisoners of war and civilian internees must be allowed to fill out capture
or int/;lmmen/ cards menlioning ai/he vel)' least their caplure/arrasl, address (curren I
place of deten~'onlintemment)and state of health. These cards must be forwarded as
rapidly as possible and may not be delayed in any mi1lnner. As long as thera is no
centralized system of notificBtions of arresl set up by CF, it is of paramounl
Importance thai these capture cards be filled out properly, so as to Bilow the leRG to
transm,l them rapidly 10 the concerned families.
13.

14,
The same oblIgation of notification /0 families of caplured or alresled persons
applies to transfers, cases of siCkness, deaths, escapes and repalriation and
identification of the dead of the adverse party. All these events must be notified 10 Ihe
leRe with Ihe full delal1s of Ihe persons concemed, so as to allow the ICRC to inform
the concerned families (Art 120, 121, 122, 123 Third Ganl;lva Convention; Art.
129,130, 136, 137, 140 Fourth GaMva Convention).
2.

TREATMENT DURING TRANSFER ANO INITIAL CUSTODY

15.
The leRC collected several allegations indicating that folloWing arrest;
persons deprived of their liberty were iII-trealed, sometimes during transfer from their
place of arrest to Iheir initial internment facility, This ill-treatment would normally stop

p.e9

MAY-09-2604

14'50

by the lime the persons reached a regular Internment facility, suc~ as Camp Cropper,
Camp Bucca or Abu Ghralb. The ICRe also collected one allegation. oI.death
resulting from harsh conditions of interment and iII·treatment during Initial custody,
16.
One allegation collected by the leRe concerned the arrest of nine men by the
CF in a hotel in Basrah on 13 September 2003. FollOWing their arrest, the nine men
were made to kneel, face and hands against the ground. as if in a prayer position.
The soldiers stamped on the back of the neck of those raising their head. They
confiscated their money without issuing a receipt. The suspects were taken to AIHakimiya, a former office previously used by the mukhabaret in Basrah and then
beaten severely by CF personnel. One of the arrestees died following the iIItreatment~ged 28, married, father of two children), Prior to his
death, his c~s heard"'hlm screaming and asking for asslslanlO8.
The issued "International Death Certificate" mentioned "Cardio·respiratory arrest asphyxia" as the condition directly leading to the death. As to the cause of that
condition, it mentioned "Unknown" and "Refer to the coroner". The l;ertiticate did not
bear any other mention, An eyewitness' description of the body given to the ICRC
mentioned a broken nose, several broken ribs and skin lesions on the face consistent
with beatif1gs. The father of the victim was informed of his death on 18 September,
and was invited to identify the body of his son, On 3 October, the commander of the
CF in Basrah presented to him his condolences af1d informed him that an
investigation had been launched and that those responsible would be puniShed. Two
other persons deprived of their liberty were hospitalised with severe injuries.
Similarly, a week later. an ICRe medilOal doctor examined them in the hospital and
observed large haematomas with dried scabs on the abdomen, buttocks, sides,
thigh, wrists, nOse and forehead consistent with their accounts of beatings reveived.
17.
During a visit of the ICRC in Camp Bucca on 22 September 2003, a 51-year
old person deprived of his liberty alleged that he had been tied, hooded and forced to
sit on the hot surface of what he surmised to be the engine of a vehide, Which had
caused severe burns to his bullocks. The victim had lost consciousness. The (eRC
observed large crusted lesions consistent with his allegation.
18.
The leRe examined another person deprived of his liberty in the "High Value
Detainees" section in October 2003 who had been subjected to a similar treatment.
He had been hooded, handcuffed in the back, and made to lie face down, on a hot
surface during transportation. This had caused severe skin burns that required three
months hospitalization. At the time of the interview he had been recently discharged
from hospital. He had to undergo several skin grafts, the amputation of his right index
finger, and suffered the permanent loss of the use of his left fifth finger secondary to
burn-induced skin retraotion, He also suffered elClensive burns over the abdomen,
anterior aspects of the lower extremities, the palm of hiS right hand and the sale of
his left foot. The JCRe recommended to the eF that the case be investigated to
determine the cause and cirCumstances of the injuries and the authority responsible
for the iII·treatmen1. At the time of writing the results of the report were still pending.
19.
During transportation following arrest, persons deprived of their liberty were
almost always hOOded and tightly reatrained with llelCi-cuffs. They were occasionally

I

t1AY-Ia9-2lala4

14: 510

haematoma and linear marks compatible with repeated whipping or beating. He had
wrist marks compatible with tight flexi-cuffs.
The ICRC also collected allegations of deaths as a result of harsh internment
conditions, ill-treatment, lack of medical atlention. or the combination thereof, notably
in Tikrit holding area formerly known as the Saddam Hussein Islamic School.

22.
Some CF military intelligence officers told the ICRG thai the widespread il/·
treatment of persons deprived of their liberty during arrest, initial internment and
"lactical questioning" was due to a lack of military police on the ground to supervise
and conlrol the behavior and activities of the battle groups units, and the lack of
experience of intelligence officers in charge of the "tactical questioning".
23.·ln ac~~~cB with provisions of International Humflnitanan Law which oblige
the cF to treat pn"sonero of war and other protectad persons humanely and to protect
them against acts of violence, threats thelGof, intimidation and insults (Art. 13, 14,17,
B7, Third Geneva Convention; Articles 5, 27, 31,32,33 Fourth Geneva Convention),
the ICRC asks Ihe Buthon"lies of the CF to respect et all times /fie human dignity,
physical integrity and CUltural sensiliv/ly of the persons deprived of their liberty held in
Iraq under their control.
The IGRG also esks the euthorlties of the GF to ensure that battle group units

transfening and/or holding individuals receive adequate training enabling them to
opef3te in a proper manner and meet their responsibilities without resorting to
brutality or using excessive force.
3.

TREATMENT DURING INTERROGATION

24.
Arrests were usually followed by temporary internment at battle group level or
at initial interrogation facilities managed by military intelligence personnel, but
accessible to other intelligence personnel (especially in the case of security
detainees). The ill-treatment by the CF personnel during interrogation was not
systematic. except with regard to persons arrested in connection with suspected
security offences or deemed to halle an "intelligence" value. In these cases, persons
deprived of their liberty supervised by the military intelligence were Subjected to a
variety of iHreatments ranging from insults and humiliation to both physical and
psVchological Coercion that in some cases might amount to torture in order to force
them to cooperate with their interrogators. In certain cases, such as in Abu Ghraib
military intelligence section, methods of physical and psychological coercion used by
the i~terrogators appeared to be part of the standard operating procedures by military
!ntell~gence personnel to obtain confessions and extract information. Several military
intelligence officers confirmed to the ICRe that it was part of the military intelligence
process to hold a person deprived of his liberty naked in a completely dark and
empty cell for a prolonged period to use inhumane and degrading treatment,
j~cluding physical and psychological coercion, against persons deprived of their
liberty to secure their cooperation.

1".11

MAY-09-2004

.,

3,1

14:51

Methods of iII·treatment

25,
The methods of ill-treatment most frequently alleged during interrogation
included
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

•
•
•

Hooding, used to prevent people from seeing and to disorient them, an~ also t~
prevent them from breathing freely, One or sometimes two bags, sometimes With
an elastic blindfold over the eyes which, when slipped down, further impeded
proper breathing, Hooding was sometimes used in conjunction with be~tings thus
increasing anxiety as to when blows would come, The practice of hooding also
allowed the interrogators to remain anonymous and thus to act with impunity,
Hooding could last for periods from a few hours to up to 2 to 4 consecutive days,
during which hoods were lifted only for drinkiF19, eating or going to the toilets;
HandcLlffing with flexi.cuffs, which were sometimes made so tight and used for
such extended periods that they caused skin lesions and 10F1g·term after-effects
on the hands (nerve damage), as observed by the leRe;
Beallngs with hard objects (including pistols and rifles), slapping, punching,
kicking with knees orfeet on variOUS parts of the body (legs, sides, lower back,
groin);
Pressing the face into the ground with boots;
Threats (of ill·treatment, reprisals against family members, imminent execution or
transfer to Guantanamo):
Being stripped naked for several days while held in solitary confinement in an
empty and completely dark cell thai included e latrine.
Being held in solitary confinement combined with threats (to intern the individual
indefinitely, to arrest other family members, to transfSf the individual to
Guantanamo). insufficient sleep, food or water deprivation. minimal access to
showers (twioe a week), denial of access to open air and prohibition of cOF1tacts
with other persons deprived of their liberty;
Being paraded naked outside cells in front of other persons deprived of their
liberty, and guards, sometimes hooded or with women's underwear over the head;
Acts of humiliation such as being made to stand naked against the wall of the cell
with arms raised or with Women's underwear over the head for prQlonged periods
- while being laughed at by guards, inCluding female guards, and sometimes
photographed in this position;
Being attached repeatedly over several days, for several hours each time, with
handcuffs 10 the bars of their cell door in humiliating (Le. naked or in underwear)
and/or uncomfortable position causing physical pain;
Exposure while hooded to loud noise or music, prolonged exposure While hooded
to the sun over several hours, including during the hottest time of the day when
temperatures could reach 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit) or higher;
Being forced 10 remain for prolonged periods in stress positions such as squatting
or standing with or without the arms lifted,

2~"
~hes~ metho,ds of physical and psychological coercion were used by the
military Intelligence In a systematic way to gain confessions and extract information
or other forms of eo-operation from persons who had been arrested in connection
with .suspected security offences or deemed to have an "intelligence value",

I

MAY-09-2004

14'51

"

3.3

Military Intelligence section, "Abu Ghraib Correctional Facility"

27.
In mid-October 2003, the leRe visited persons deprived of their liberty
undergoing interrogation by military intelligence officers In Unit 1A, the "isolation
section" of "Abu Ghraib" Correctional Facility. Most of these persons deprived of their
liberty had been arrested in early October. During the visit, leRG delegates directly
witnessed and documented a variety of methods used to secure the cooperation of
the persons deprived of their liberty with their interrogators. In particular mey
witnessed the practice of keeping persons deprived of their liberty completely naked
in totally empty concrete cells and in total darkness, allegedly for several consecutive
days. Upon witnessing such cases, the leRG interrupted its visits and requested an
el<planation from the authorities. The rnil~ary intelligence officer in charge of the
interrogation explained that this practice was "part of the process". The process
appeared to be a 9jve~and-take policy Whereby persons deprived oftheir liberty were
"drip-fed" with new items (clothing, bedding. hygiene articles, lit cell, etc.) in
exchange for their "cooperation", The leRG also visited other persons deprived of
their liberty held in total darkness, others in dimly lit cells who had been allowed to
dress following periods during which they had been held naked. Several had been
given women's underwear \0 wear under their jl.lmpsuit (men's underwear was not
distributed), which they fell 10 be humiliating.
The leRG documented other forms of ill·treatrnent, usually combined with those
described above, including threats. insults, verbal violence, sleep deprivation caused
by the playing of loud music or constant light in cells devoid of windows, tight
handcuffing with nell'i-cuffs causing lesions and wounds around the wrists.
Punishment included being made to walk in the corridors handcuffed and naked,or
with women's underwear on the head. or being handcuffed either dressed or naked
to the bed bars or the cell door. Some persons deprived of their liberty presented
physical marks and psychological symptoms, which were compatible with these
allegations. The leRe medical delegate examined persons deprived of their liberty
presenting signs of concentration difficulties. memory problems, verbal expression
difficulties, incoherent speech. acute anxiety reactions, abnormal behaviour and
suicidal tendencies. These symptoms appeared to have been caused by the
methods and duration of interrogation. One person held in isolation that the rCRG
examined, was unresponsive to verbal and painful stimuli. His heart rate was 120
beats per minute and his respiratory rate 18 per minute. He was diagnosed as
suffering from somatoform (mental) disorder, specifically a conversion disorder, most
likely due to the ill-treatment he was subjecled to during interrogation.
According to the allegations Collected by the ICRe, detaining authOrities also
continued to keep persons deprived of their liberty during the period of interrogation,
uninformed of the reason for their arrest They were often questioned without
knOWing what they were accused of. They were not allowed to ask questions and
were not provided with an opportunity to seek clarification about the reason for their
arrest. Their treatment tended to vary according to their degree of cooperation with
their Interrogators: those who cooperated were afforded preferential treatment such
as being allowed contacts with other persons deprived of their liberty. being allowed
t? phone their families, being given clothes, bedding equipment. foad. water or
cigarettes, being allowed access to showers. being held in a IiI cell, etc.

P.13

MAV-89-2884

3.3

14:51

P.14

Umm Ca3r (JFIT) and Camp Bucca (JIF/ICEI

28.
Since the establishment af Umm Casr camp and its successor, Camp Bucca.
persons deprived of their liberty undergoing interrogation, whether they had been
arrested by British, Danish, Dutch or Italian armed forces were segregated from other
internees in a separate section of the camp designed for investigation. This section
was initially operated by the British Armed Forces who called it Joint Field
Intelligence Team (JFIT). On 7 April. its administration was handed over to the US
Armed Forces, which renamed it Joint Interrogation Facilityllnterrogation Control
Element (JIFIlCE). On 25 September 2003. its administration was handed back to
the British Armed Forces.
29.
CF intelligence personnel interrogated persons deprived of their liberty of
concern to them in this seclion. They were either accused of attacks against the CF
or deemed to have an "intelligence value". They could be held there from a few days
to several weeks, until their interrogation was completed. During a visit in September
2003, the ,eRG interviewed in lhat section several persons deprived of their liberty
that had been held there for periods from three to four weeks.
Initially, inmat

were routinely treated by their guards with general contempt,
as having orders screamed at them and being cursed.
kicked, struck with ritle butts, roughed up or pushed around. They were reportedly
handcuffed in the back and hooded for the duration of the interrogation and were
prohibited from talking to each other or to the guards. Hooding appeared to be
motivated by security concerns as well as to be part of standard intimidation
techniques used by military intelligence personnel to frighten Inmates Into
cooperaling. This was combined with deliberately maintaining uncertainty about what
would happen to the inmates, and a generally hosli1e attitude on the part Clf the
guards. Conditions of internment Improved according to the degree of cooperation of
the persons deprived of his liberty. Interrogated persons deprived of their liberty were
held in two separate sections. Those under initial investigation were reportedly not
allowed to talk to each other (purportedly to avoid exchange of Information and
"versions of events" between them). They were not allowed to stand up or wafk out of
the tent but they had access to water with which to wash themselves. Once they had
cooperated with their interrogators. they were transferred to the "privileged" tent
where the above-mentioned restrictions were lifted.
$

WIfI~amull'alel'l'Cl!nsuch

31.
Persons deprived of their liberty undergoing interrogation by the GF were
allegedly subjected to frequent cursing, insults and threats, both physical and verbal,
such as having rifles aimed at them in a !Jeneral way or directly against the temple,
the back of the head, or the stomach, and threatened With transfer to Guantanamo.
death or indefinite internment. Besides mentioning the general climate of intimidation
maintained as one of the methOds used to pressure persons deprived of their liberty
to cooperate with their interrogators, none of those interviewed by the IGRe in Umm
Casr a.nd Gan:'P Bucca spoke of physical iII"treatment during interrogation. All
allega~lons
IIl-treat"!1ent referred 10 the phase of arrest, initial internment (at
collecllng pOints, holding areas) and "tactical questioning" by military intelligence
officers altaohed to pattie group units, prior to transfer to Camp Bucca.

a,'

MRY-09-2004

3.4

14:52

P.1S

Previous actions taken by the ICRC in 2003 on the issue of treatment

32.
On 1 April, the leRe informed orally the political advisor of the commander of
British Armed Forces at the CF Central Command in Doha about methods of iIItreatment used by military intelligence personnel to interrogate persons deprived of
their liberty in the intemment camp of Umm Casr. This intervention had the
immediate effect to stop the systematic use of hoods and f1exi-cuffs in the
interrogation section of Umm Casr. Brutal treatment of persons deprived of their
liberty also allegedly ceased when the BOO"' MP Brigade took over the guarding of
that section in Umm Qasr. UK Forces handed over Umm Casr holding area to the
80011I MP Brigade on 09.0403. The BOO'" MP Brigade then built Camp Bucca two
kilometers away.
33.
In May 2003, the ICRC sent to the CF a memorandum based on over 200
allegations of ill-treatment of prisoners of War during capture and interrogation at
collecting points, battle group stations and temporary holding areas. The allegations
were consistent with marks on bodies observed by the medical delegate. The
memorandum was handed over t.
:
2 51la US Central Command
in Doha. Sate of Qatar. Subsequently, one improvement consisted in the removal of
wristbands with the remark "terrorist" given to foreign detainees.
34.
In early JUly the ICRC sent the CF a working paper detailing approximately 50
allegations of ill-treatment in the military intelligence section of Camp Cropper, at
Baghdad International Airport. They included a combination of petty and deliberate
acts of violence aimed at securing the cooperation of the persons deprived of their
liberty with their interrogators: threats (to intern individuals indefinitely, to arrest other
family members, to transfer individuals to Guantanamo) against persons deprived of
their liberty or against members of their families (in particular wives and daughters);
hooding; tight handcuffing; use of stress positions (kneeling, squalling, standing with
arms raised over the head) for three or four hours; taking aim at individuals with
rilles, striking them with rifle butts, slaps, punches, prolonged exposure to the sun,
and isolation in dark cells. ICRG delegates witnessed marks on the bOdies of several
persons deprived of their liberty consistent with their allegations. In one illustrative
case, a person deprived of his liberty arrested at home by the CF on suspicion of
Involvement in an attack against the CF. was allegedly beaten during interrogation in
a location in lhe vicinity of Camp Cropper. He alleged that he had been hooded and
cuffed with llexi-cuffs, threatened to be tortured and killed, urinated on, kicked in the
head, lower back and groin, force-fed a baseball which was tied into the mouth using
a scarf and deprived of sleep for four consecutive days. Interrogators would allegedly
take turns ill-treating him. When he said he would complain to the leRC he was
allegedly beaten more. An 'eRe medical examination revealed haematoma in the
lower back, blood in urine, sensory loss in the right hand due to tight handcuffing with
flexi-euffs. and a broken rib.
Shortly after that intervention was sent, the military intelligence internment section
was closed and persons deprived of their liberty were transferred to what became the
"High Value Detainees" section of the airport, a regular internment facility under the
Command of the 115th Military Police Battalion. From this time onwards, the leRC
observed thaI the ill-treatment of this category of persons deprived of their liberty by

MAY-09-2004

P.1E.

14:52

military intelligence declined significantly and even stopped, while their interrogation
continued through to the end of the year 2003,

3.5 '

Allegations of jIJ·trea1ment by Iraqi police

35.
The ICRC has also collected a growing body of allegations relating to
widespread abuse of power and ill-treatment of persons in the custody of Iraqi police.
This included the extensive practice of threatening to handover these persons to the
CF for internment, or claiming to acl under the CF instructions, in order to abuse their
power and extort money from persons laken in custody. Allegations collecled by the
ICRC indicated that numerous people had been handed over to the CF on the basis
of unfounded accusations (of hostility against the CF, or belonging to opposition
forces) because they were unable or unwilling, to pay bribes to the police. Alleged illtreatment during arrest and transportation included hooding, tight handcuffing, verbal
abuse, beating with fists and rifle bUtts, and kicking. During interrogation, the
detaining authorities allegedly whipped persons deprived of their liberty with cables
on the back, kicked them in the lower parts of the body. including in the testicles.
handcuffed and left them hanging from the iron bars of the cell windoWS or doors in
painful positions for several hours at a time, and burned them with cigarettes (signs
an bodies witnessed by leRe delegates). Several persons deprived of their liberty
alleged that they had been made to sign a statement that they had not been allowed
to read. These allegations concerned several police slations in Baghdad including AlOana, AI-Jiran AI-Kubra in al-Amariyya , AI·Hurriyyeh in AI-Doura, AI-Salhiyye in
Salhiyye, and AI-Baiah. Many persons deprived orthe;r liberty drew parallels
between police practices under the occupation with those of the former regime.
36.
/n early June 2003, for instance, a group of persons deprived of their liberty
was taken to the former police academy after they had been arrested. There, they
were allegedly hooded and cuffed and made to stand against a wall while a
policeman placed his pistol against their heads and pulled the trigger In a mock
execution (the pistol was in fael unloaded): they were also allegedly forceCl to sit on
chairs where they were hit on the legs, the soles of their feet and on their sides with
sticks. They also allegedly had water poured on their legs and had electrical shocks
administered to them with stripped tips of electric wires. The mother of one of the
pe($ons deprived of liberty was reportedly brought in and the policemen threatened
to mistreat her. Another person deprived of his liberty was threatened with having his
wife brought in and raped. They were made 10 fingerprint their alleged confessions of
guilt, which resulted in their transfer to the CF to be interned pending trial.

37.
The leRC remincJs the authorities oflhe GF that prisoners of war and other
protected persons in the custody of occupying forces must be humanely treated at all
limes; they must not be subjected to cruet or degrading treatment; and musl be
protected against all acts of violence (Art. 13, 14, Third Geneva Gonvenlion; Art. 27,
Fourlh Geneva Convention). Torluro and olher forms ofphysical and psycho/r;gir;al
coercion against prisoners of wer end olher inlemed persons for Ihe purpose of
extracting confession or informalion Is prohibited in all cases and under all
circumstances without exception (Art. 17 and 87, Third Geneva Convention; Art. 5,
31 and 32. Founh Geneva Convention). Confessions extrac;/ed under coercion or
lorture can never be used as evidence of gum (Art, 99, Third Geneva Convenlion,
Aft. 31/ Fourth Geneva Convention). Such violations of International Humanitarian

MAY-09-2884

14:53

P.l?

Law should be thoroughly investigated i order to determine responsibilities and
prosecute those found responsible (Alt. 129, Third Geneva Convention and Art. 145,
fourlh Geneva ConvMtion).
4.

TREATMENT IN REGULAR INTERNMENT FACILITIES

'.1.

General conditions oftreatment

The leRC assessed the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in
regUlar internment facilities by CF personnel as respectful, with a few individual
exceptions due to il1dividual personalities or occasional loss of control on the part of
the guards, Abusive behavior by guards, when reported to their officers, was usually
quickly reprimanded and disciplined by superiors.
38.

39.
The leRC often noted a serious communication gap between detention
personnel and persons deprived of their liberty, primarily due to the language barrier,
which resulted in frequent misunderstandings. This was compounded by a
widespread attitude of contempt on the part of guards, in reaction to which persons
depriVed of their liberty, which often complained of being treated like inferiors,
adopted a similar attitude.
The ICRC occa5ionallyobserved persons deprived of their liberty being
slapped, roughed up, pushed around or pushed to the ground either because of poor
communication (a failure to understand or a misunderstanding of orders given in
english was construed by guards as resistance or disobedience), a disrespectfUl
attitude on the part of guards, a reluctance by persons deprived of their liberty to
comply with orders, or a loss of temper by guards.
40,

41.
Disciplinary measures included being taken out of the compound. handcuffed
and made to stand, sit, squat or lie down in the sand under the sun for up to three or
four hours, depending on the breach of discipline (disrespectful behavior towards
guards, communication between persons deprived of their liberty transferring from
one compound to another. disobeying orders); temporary suspension of cigarette
distribution, and temporary segregation in disciplinary confinement ::;ections of the
detention facilities.
.
42.
Despite the fact that reductions in the availability of water or food rations or,
more commonly, cigarettes were occasionally observed. the prohibition on collective
punishment provided for under International Humanitarian Law (Art. 26.6, 87.3, Third
Geneva Convention and Art. 33, Fourth Geneva Convention) appeared to be
generally respected by detaining authorities.

4.2.

"High Value Detainees" section, Baghdad International Airport

43.
Since June 2003. over a hundred "high value detainees" have been held for
nearly 23 hours a day in strict solitary confinement in small concrete cells devoid of
daylight, This regime of complete isolation strictly prohibited any contact with other
persons deprived of their liberty, guards, family members (excepllhrough Red Cross
Messages) and the rest of the outside world. Even spouses and members of the

MAY-09-2004

14:53

P.18

same family were subject to this regime. Persons deprived of their liberty whose
"investigation" was nearing completion were reportedly allowed to exercise together
outside their cells for twenty minutes twice a day or go to the showers or toilets
together. The other persons deprived of their liberty still under interrogation
reportedly continued to be interned in total "segregation" (i.e. they were allowed 10
exercise outside their cells for twenty minutes twice a day and to go to the showers
or toilets but always alone and without any contact with others). Most had been
subjected to this regime for the past five months. Allempts to contact other persons
deprived of their liberty or simply to exchange glances or greetings were reportedly
sanctioned by reprimand or temporary deprivation of time outside their cells. Since
August 2003, the detainees have been provided with the Koran. They have been
allowed to receive books of a non-political nature, but no newspapers or magazines
on current affairs, The internment regime appeared to be mo~vated by a combination
of security concerns (isolation of the persons deprived of their liberty from the outside
world) and the collection of intelligence. All had been undergoing interrogation since
their inlemment. in spite of the fact that none had been Charged with criminal offence.
On 30 October 2003, the leRe wrote to the Detaining Authorities recommending that
this policy be discontinued and replaced by a regime of internment consistent with
the CF's obligations under the Geneva Conl/entions.
44.
Tho internment ofpersons in solitary confinement for months at a time in celfs
devoid of daylight for nearly 23 hours a day is more severe than the fonns of
in/emment provided for in the Third and Fourlh Geneva Conventions (investigation of
criminal offences or disciplinary punishment). It C'annot be used as a regUlar, ordinary
mode of holding of pn'soners of wllr or civilian internees. The leRG reminds the
autnorities of the Coalition Forces in Ifllq that intemment of this kind oontravenes
Arlieles 21, 25. 89. 90. 95. 10J of the Third Geneva Convention and Articles 27, 41,
42, 78, 82. 118. 125 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. TIle leRG recommends 10
the authorities oftheCF that they set up an intflmment regime which ensures respect
for tile psychological integrity and human dignity of the persons deprived or their
liberty and that they make sure that all persons deprived of their liberty are allowed
sufficient time Ilvery day outside in the sunlight and the opportunity to move about
ana exemise in the outside yard

S.

EXCESSIVE AND DISPROPORTIONATE USE OF FORCE AGAINST
PERSONS DEPRIVED OF TH5lR LIBERTY SY THE DETAINING
AUTHORITIES

45.
Since March 2003, the leRG recorded, and in some cases, witneSSed. a
number of incidents in which guards shot at persons deprived of their liberty with live
ammunition, in the context either of unrest relating to internment conditions or of
escape attempts by individuals:
Camp Cropper. 24 May 2003:
In the context of a hunger strike, unrest broke out
In the camp prior to ICRC visit. One person deprived of his liberty suffered a gunshot
wound.

.'

P.19

Camp Cropper, 9 June 2003:
Six persons deprived of their liberty were injured by
live ammunition after a guard opened fire on the group in an attempt to quell a
d~monstration.

Camp Cropper, 12 June 2003: Two, or possibly three. persons deprived of their
liberty were shot at when they attempted to escape through the barbed wire fence.
One of them, Akheel Abd AI.Hussein from Baghdad, was wounded and later died
after being taken to the hospital. The other person deprived of his liberty was
recaptured and received treatment for gunshot wounds.
Abu Ghraib, 13 June 2003:
When unrest flared up, guards from three
watchtowers opened fire at the demonstrators, injuring seven persons deprived of
their liberty and killing another, Alae Jesim Hassan. The authorities investigated the
matter and concluded thallhe "Shooting was justified as the "three tower [guards]
determined that the lives of the interior guards werelhreatened",
Abu Ghraib, late June 2003;
During unrest, one person deprived of his liberty
was injured by live ammunition when a guard opened fire.
Abu Ghraib, 24 November 2003: During a riot four detainees were killed by US MP
guards. The killing took place after unrest erupted in one of the compounds (no 4).
The detainees claimed to be unhappy with the situation of detentiOn, Specifically,
lack of food, Clothing, but more importantly the lack of judicial guarantees and,
especially important during the time of Eid al-Fitr, lack of family visits or lack of
contacts alitogetheL The detainees alleged to have gathered near the gate
Whereupon the guards panicked and started shooting. Initially, non-lethal ammunition
was used which was subsequently replaced by live ammunition.
The report handed over by the CF to the JeRe states that detainees were trying to
force open the gate. It further states thai several verbal warnings were given and
non-lethal ammunition fired at the crowd, After 25 minutes deadly force was applied
resulting in the death of four detainees_

'I" ''1''2 188810)0

Ie

~

L)

The narrative report furnished by Ihe CF does not address the reason for the riot in
sny way and does not give any recommendations as to how a similar incident could
be avoided. It does nat question the use of lethal force during such an incident.
Ca~p Bucca, 16-22 April 2003: JeRe delegates witnessed a shooting incident,
which caused the death of one person deprived of his liberty and injury of another. A
first shot was tired on the ground by a soldier located outside Ihe compound in a bid
10. rascu~ one of Ihe guards, allegedly being threatened by a prisoner of War armed
With a stick; the second shot injured a prisoner of war in Ihe left forearm, and the third
shot killed another prisoner of war.

MAY-09-2004

14:54

Camp Bucca, 22 September 200:!:
Following unrest in a section of the camp,
one person deprived of his liberty, allegedly throwing stones, was fired upon by a
guard in a watchtoweL He suffered a gunshot wound to the upper part of the chest.
the bullet passed through the chest and exited form ltle back, The investigation
undertaken by the CF concluded that "the compound guards correctly utilized the
rules of engagement and thaI numerous non-lethal rounds were dispersed to no
avail". The person deprived of his liberty "was the victim of a justifiable shooting". An
ICRC delegate and an interpreter witnessed most of the events. At no point did the
persons deprived of their liberty, and the victim shot at, appear 10 pose a serious
threat to the life or security of Ihe guards who could have responded to the situation
with less brutal measures. The shooting showed a clear disregard for human life and
security of the persons deprived of their liberty.
45.
These incidents were investigated summ<lrily by the CF. They concluded in all
eases that a legitimate use of firearms had been made against persons deprived of
their liberty, who, except perhaps in Abu Ghraib on 13 June 2003, wers unarmed and
did not appear to pose any serious threat to anyone's life justifying the use of
firearms. In all cases, less extreme measures could have been used to quell the
demonstrations or neutralize persons deprived of their liberty trying to escape.

47.

In connection with the 22 September 2003 incident, the leRe wrote on 23
October to the Commander of the 800t~ MP Brigade and recommended the adoption
of crowd control measures consistent with the rules and principles of the Third and
Fourth Geneva Conventions and other appliCOIbllll international norms relating to the
use of force or fire arms by law-enforcement personnel.
46.
Since May 2003, the ICRC repeatedly recommended to the CF to use nonlethal methods to deal with demonstrations, riots or escape attempts. In Camp
Gropper, its recommendations were heeded. After initial deplorable incidents no
further shooting of persons deprived of their liberty has occurred since November
2003. In mid-July, the rCRe witnessed a demonstration in that camp: in spite of some
violence by the persons deprived of their liberty, the problem was efficiently dealt WIth
by the camp commander without any excessive use of force. He called in anti.riot
military policemen, refrained from any act that might have provoked further anger
from tne persons deprived of their liberty, waited patiently for the emotions to calm
down and then sought to establish dialogue with the persons deprived of their liberty
through their section representatives. The unrest was quieted down without any
violence.

49,
The leRG reminds the authorities of the CF that the use of firearms against
peroons deprived oftheir liberty, especially against those who are escaping or
attempting to escape is an extreme measure which shoUld not be disproportionate to
the legitimate objective to be achievad (to apprehend the individual) and shall always
be preceded by weming appropriate to the circumstances (Art. 42 Third Geneva
Convention).
The CF detaining personnel should be provided with adequat9 training to d9al with
incidents in their internment facilities. Firearms should not be USed except when a
suspected offender offers armed resistance or otllelWise jeopardizes the lilies of
others and only when less extreme measures are not sufficient to festrain or

apprehend him (Article J of the Code of Conduct for Law /Enforcement Officials and
Arocle 9 of the Basic Principles on the Usa of Force and Firearms by Law
Enforcement OffICials).
In every instance in which a firearm is discharged, a report should be made promptly
to the competent aulhoritifils. All deaths or serious injuries of a person depnVed of his
liberty ca14sed or suspected 10 have- been caused by a sentry should be immediately
followed by a proper inquiry by the Detaining Power which should ensure the
prosecution of any person(s) found responsible (Art. 121, Third Geneva Convention;
Arl. 131, Fourth GEmeva Convention).
6.

SEIZURE AND CONFISCATION OF PRIVATE BELONGINGS OF PERSONS
DEPRIVED OF THEIR LIBERTY

50. The ICRC collected numerous allegations of seizure and confiscation of
private property (money, cars and other vaillaples) by the CFin the context of
arrests. In only a few cases were receipts issued to the arrested person or his family,
detailing the items confiscated. This was perceived by persons deprived of their
liberty as outright theft or pillage. The following examples will serve to illustrate the
allegations:
7:
_
I(
i 11' blleged that the CF took US$22,oOo
in cash and hl$p1F'sonalluggage during his arrest:
•
21111 3 I i i T
J III prs
all claimed that large
amounts of money and personal effec::ts were confiscated by the CF when he was
arrested at his home on 27-28 May 2003. The items confiscated allegedly
included 71,450,000 Iraqi dinars, 14,000 US dollars, two wedding rings, a video
camer<!, a watch, real-estate property documents, his wife's residential
documents, his father's will, his private diaries, as well as most of the family
private documents and personal identity and other papers;
• 7
:. . . .;
12 52%
2) laimed that his car was
confiscated when he was arrested by the CF in Basrah on 16 July 2003.
? £
IIIllB 1 I p
claimed that CF confiscated
two milliof1 Iraqi dinars when arrested at his home on 21 August 2003;
2:4 claimed thal his money and two cars
were confiscated when he was arrested by the CF on 11 August 2ooJ;
•

22"

• '7 ;

t

t

)

l...-n

51.
In Camp Cropper, Camp Bucca and Abu Ghraib, a system was gradually put
In place wherepy personal belongings in the possession of persons deprived of their
liberty at the time of their arrival in these facilities which they could not keep with
them (money, other valuables. spare Clothing, identity papers) were registered and
kept until their release. In these cases, a reCeipt was usually issued to the person
deprived of his liberty and his belongings were returned when he was released.
However, this system took no account of the property seized dUring arrest.
6~.

In response 10 property loss or damage caused to property by the CF dllring
raids and also to complaints regarding pension or salaries the CF established a
compensation system open to everyone, including interne~s and the general pUblic.
Complai.n~~ could be filed a~ G~nerall~formation Centers (GIC), set up under the
responslbllrty of the H..manltanan A$Slstance Coordination Centers (HACC).

J'

.,

P.22

Supporting evidence, which is problematic given thaI arresting authorities. rarely issue
receipts, should back claims. The leRC is not yet able to assess the efficiency of this
compensation system although it nas had the possibility to visit one of the GICs.
There are nine GICs in the city of Baghdad and one in the city of Mosul, there are
however none in the other parts of the country therefore depriving a large number of
persons of the possibility to file complaints

53.
In accordance with internatianallegal provisions, the leRe reminds the
authorities of the CF that pillage is prohibited by International Humanitarian Law (Art.
33, Fourth Geneva Convention), that pn'va/e properly may not be confiscatad (Art.
46.2, 1907 Hague Convenlion No IV), ~nd that an anny of occupation can only take
possession of cash, funds, and realizable securities which al'9 strictly the property of
the State. (Art. 53, 1907 Hague Convention No IV).
In addition, persons deprived of their liberty shall be permitted to retain arliole~ Of
personal use. Valuables may not be taken from them except in accordance with an
established procedure and receipts must be issued. (Art. 18, 58.2, Third Geneva
Convention and Art. 97, Fourth Geneva Convention).
7.

EXPOSURE OF INTERNEES/OETAINEES TO DANGEROUS TASKS

54.
On 3 September 2003 in Camp Bucca, three persons deprived of their liberty
were severely injured by the explosion of what apparently was a cluster bomb:
bilateral below-knee

I (left above-knee

They were part of a group of 10 persons deprived of their liberty involved in voluntary
work to clear rUbbish along the barbed-wire fence of the camp. They were transferred
to the British Field Mmtary H~spit~1 where they received appropriate medical
treatment. Their InJuries reqUired limb amputations.
On 23 October ~003, ,the.leRC wrote to the officer commanding the BOOth MP
Brigade to request an Investigation Into the incident. The leRG encouraged the CF
not to engage persons deprived of their liberty in dangerolJs labour.

55:

56.
The leRe recommends to the authon'lies of the CF that all three victims be
properly compensated as provided for by both Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions
(Art. 68, Third Geneva Convention and Art. 95, FDurth Geneva Convention).

I" .<::,.,.J

8.

PROTECTION OF PERSONS DEPRIVED OF THEIR LIBERTY AGAINST

SHELI-JHG
57. Since its reopening by the CF. Abu Ghraib prison has been the target of
frequent night shelling by mortars and other weapons, which resulted, on several
occasions, in persons deprived of their liberty being killed or injured. During the
month of.July, the Commander of the facility reported at least 25 such attacks. On 16
August, three mortar rounds landed in the prison compound, killing at least five and
injuring 67 persons deprived of their liberty. Subsequent at1acks caused further
deaths and injuries. An ICRC team visited Abu Ghraib on 17 August and noticed the
lack of protective measures: While the CF personnel were living in concrete buildings,
.all persons deprived of their liberty were sheltered under tents in compounds which
had no bunkers or any other protection. rendering them totally vuinerable to shelling.
Persons deprived of their liberty alleged that they had not been advised on wnat to
do to protect themselves in the event of shelling. They were dismayed and felt that
the authorities "did not care". After these attacks, security was improved around the
prison compound to reduce the risK of further attacks. However. steps taken to
ensure the protection of persons deprived of their liberty remained insufficient. The
inmates were allowed to fill and place sandbags around the perimeter of each tent.
By late October, sandbags had not been placed around all tents and those sandbags
that were in place did not offer adequate protection from shelling or projectile
explosions.
58.
In aGcorrJanGe with International Humanitarian I-aw proVisions, the ICRC
reminds the authorities of the CF that the detaining power must not sat up places of
intemment in alBBS particularty exposed to the dangers pf war (Art. 23.1, Third
Geneva Convention end Art 83, Fourth Geneva Convention). In all places of
internment exposed to air relds and other hazards of war, shelters adequate in
number and structure to ensure the necessary protection must be made available. In
the event of an elarm, the Internees must be free to enter such shelters as quickly as
possible (Art. 23.2, Third Geneva Convention and Art. 88, Fourth Geneva
Convention). When S placE! of intemment is found to be unsafe, persons deprived of
their liberty should be transferred to other places of interment. offering adequate
IifIcurily end living oonditions in accordance with the Third and Fourth Geneva
Conventions.

CONCLUSION
59.
This lCRC report documents serious violalions of International Humanitarian
Law relating 10 the conditions of treatment of the penions deprived of their liberty held
by the C~ in Iraq.. In pa~icular, it establiShes that persons deprived of their liberty
~ace the rISk of being SUbjected to a process of physical and psychological coercion,
In some cases tantamount to torture, in the early stages of the internment process.

60.
Once the interrogation process is over, the conditions of trealment for the
persons ,~epri~ed of their liberty generally improve. except in the "High Value
l?et3lOee section at Baghdad International Airport where persons deprived of their
hberty have been held for nearly 23 hours a day in strict solitary confinement in small

MRY-09-2004

14:55

concrete cells devoid of daylight, an internment regime which does not comply with
provisions of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions.
61.
During internment, persons deprived of their liberty also risk .b~ing victims. of
disproportionatll and excessive use of force on the part of detaining authOrities
attempting to restore order in the event of unrest or to prevent escapes.
62.
Another serious violation of InternatiMal Humanitarian Law described in the
report is the CF'sinability or la~k of Will. to set. up a syst~m ?f n~tifications .o! arrests
for the families of persons depnved of liberty In Iraq. ThiS Violation of prOVISions of
I"ternational Humanitarian Law causes immense distress among persons deprived of
their liberty and their families, the latter fearing that their relatives unaccounted for
are dead. The uncaring behaviour of the CF and their inabilitY to quickly provide
accurate information on persons deprived of their liberty for the families concerned
also seriously affects the. image of the Occupying Powers amongst the Iraqi
population.
63,
In addition to recommendations highlighted in the report relating to conditions
of internment. information given to persons deprived of their liberty upon anest, and
the need to investigate violations of International Humanitarian Law and to prosecute
those found responsible, the leRe wishes particularly to remind the CF of their duty:
•
•
•
•
•
•

I

to respect at all times the human dignity, physical integ ritv and cultural sensitivity
of persons deprived of their liberty held under their control:
to set up a system of notifications of arrests to ensure that the families persons
deprived of their liberty are quickly and accurately informed;
to prevent all forms of ill-treatment and moral or physical coercion of persons
deprived of their liberty in connection with interrogations:
to instruct the arresting and detaining authorities that causing serious bodily injury
or serious harm to the health of protected persons is prohibited under the Third
and Fourth Geneva Conventions
to set up an internment regime that ensures respect for the psychological integrity
and human dignity of the persons deprived of their liberty
to ensure that banle group units arresting individuals and staff in charge of
internment facilities receive adequate training enabling them to operate in a
proper manner and fulfill their responsibilities without resorting to ill-treatment or
using excessive force.

The practices described in this report are prohibited under International Humanitarian
Law. They warrant serious attention by the CF. In particular, the CF should review
th~ir policies and practices. take ,corrective action and improve the treatment of
prisoners of war and other protected persons under their authority. This report is part
of the bilateral and confidential dialogue undertaken by the leRG with the CF. In the
future, the ICRC will continue its bilateral and confidential dialogue with the CF in
accordam;e with provisions of International Humanitanan Law, on the basiS of its
monitoring of the condnions of arrest. interrogation and internment of persons
deprived of tneir Iibllrty held by the CF.
• End of report -

TOTAL P.24