The conditions of such maintenance may be settled by a reciprocal agreement between the belligerent parties. In the absence of this agreement, and as a general principle, prisoners of war shall be treated as regards food and clothing, on the same footing as the troops of the Government which captured them. His Excellency Mr. Beernaert proposes to supersede "the Government charges itself" by "the Government is charged," and to insert between the words "food and clothing" the word "quarters." These proposals and the article thus amended are adopted. Article 28 is now read: Prisoners of war are subject to the laws and regulations in force in the army in whose power they are. Arms may be used, after summoning, against a prisoner of war attempting to escape. If recaptured he is liable to disciplinary punishment or subject to a stricter surveillance. If, after succeeding in escaping, he is again taken prisoner, he is not liable to punishment for his previous acts. After an exchange of views between General Zuccari and his Excellency Mr. Beernaert, the subcommission decides to modify the first paragraph as follows: "Prisoners of war are subject to the laws, regulations, and orders in force in the army of the State in whose power they are." The second paragraph will be composed of the old paragraph 4 of Article 23. second paragraph is dropped. 66 Mr. Lammasch proposes to add to Article 28, paragraph 2 (former paragraph 4 of Article 23) the words: An attempt at flight and a refusal to perbe compelled to perform shall not be con form acts which they ought not to sidered as insubordination." This motion is not carried. In a discussion between Messrs. Colonel Gilinsky, Lammasch, Lieutenant Colonel Khuepach, Colonel Gross von Schwarzhoff, his Excellency Mr. Beernaert, Chevalier Descamps and Rolin, three opinions were expressed on the subject of escaped prisoners of war: 1. Mr. Lammasch is of opinion, in view of the conflict of duties existing with regard to a prisoner, that he should not be subjected to any punishment, even disciplinary, for an attempt to escape. He proposes to strike out in paragraph 3 (former paragraph 2) the words "liable to disciplinary punishment or" and to omit all of the old paragraph 3 beginning with the words "if, after succeeding.' 2. Lieutenant Colonel Khuepach points out the anomaly in this article, which [72] subjects to disciplinary punishments those prisoners of war whose escape has not been successful and does not punish those who have succeeded in escaping; the former are subject to punishment, but the latter not; this is offering a premium on skill. 3. Colonel Gilinsky is of opinion that disciplinary punishments will not be sufficient to stop attempts to escape and that the guilty parties ought to be brought before a court-martial. He remarks that it seems impractical to limit to a disciplinary punishment the penalty inflicted for the flight of a prisoner of It will be impossible to place a strong guard over prisoners of war without war. diminishing the number of combatants; and with a weak guard it will always be possible to escape. Will not shrewd persons take advantage of the almost absolute immunity in order to make frequent escapes and thus transmit information regarding the enemy to their army? Mr. Rolin observes that at the Brussels Conference it was the unanimous opinion that the first paragraph should be applicable to crimes connected with attempts to escape, such as the murder of guards. As the subcommission adopts this opinion, Mr. Gilinsky does not insist on his motion, but this is under the express reservation that the military authorities in case of crimes connected with attempts to escape will not inflict disciplinary penalties, but will try the guilty parties according to the military laws in force in the captor State. His Excellency Mr. Beernaert finally proposes the following wording: Escaped prisoners who are retaken before being able to rejoin their army are liable to disciplinary punishment. Prisoners who, after succeeding in escaping, are again taken prisoners are not liable to any punishment for the previous flight. 66 Colonel Gross von Schwarzhoff proposes to add after the word army " the words: "or before leaving the territory occupied by the army that captured them." The wording proposed by his Excellency Mr. BEERNAERT and the amendment of Colonel GROSS VON SCHWARZHOFF meet general approval and the last two paragraphs of the article, thus worded, are adopted. Article 29 is adopted with the wording of the Brussels draft: Every prisoner of war is bound to give, if questioned on the subject, his true name and rank, and if he infringes this rule, he is liable to a curtailment of the advantages accorded to the prisoners of war of his class. Article 30 is now read: The exchange of prisoners of war is regulated by a mutual understanding between the belligerent parties. This provision is dropped at the suggestion of Colonel GROSS VON SCHWARZHOFF as being superfluous. Article 31 is now read: Prisoners of war may be set at liberty on parole if the laws of their country allow it, and, in such cases, they are bound, on their personal honor, scrupulously to fulfill, both towards their own Government and the Government by which they were made prisoners, the engagements they have contracted. In such cases their own Government ought neither to require of nor accept from them any service incompatible with the parole given. This article is adopted except that the words "is bound neither to require of " are substituted for "ought neither to require of." Article 32 is adopted with the wording of the Brussels draft: A prisoner of war cannot be compelled to accept his liberty on parole; similarly the hostile Government is not obliged to accede to the request of the prisoner to be set at liberty on parole. Article 33 is now read: Any prisoner of war liberated on parole and recaptured bearing arms against the Government to which he had pledged his honor may be deprived of the rights accorded to prisoners of war and brought before the courts. Upon an observation by Colonel Gross von Schwarzhoff, it is decided to insert the words "or against its allies" after "pledged his honor." In regard to Article 34, different wordings were proposed by Messrs. Odier, Lammasch, Beernaert, and Rahusen. In view of the agreement as to the main issue, the President proposes that these delegates reach an understanding on the form to be given to Article 34. The meeting adjourns. [73] THIRD MEETING MAY 30, 1899 Mr. Martens presiding. The minutes of the second meeting are read and adopted. Before beginning the deliberations, the President says that it is understood that in discussing the stipulations of the Brussels Declaration the delegates are supposed to be expressing simply their personal opinions and by no means to be committing their respective Governments. The wording of Articles 25 and 26, proposed by his Excellency Mr. BEERNAERT and formulated as follows, is now read: The State may utilize the labor of prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude. The tasks cannot be excessive; they can have no connection with the operations of the war. Prisoners may be authorized to work for the public service, for private persons, or on their own account. Work done for the State is paid for at the rates in force for work of a similar kind done by soldiers of the national army. When the work is for other branches of the public service or for private persons, the conditions are settled in agreement with the ministry of war. The wages of the prisoners shall go towards improving their position, and the balance shall be paid them at the time of their release, after deducting the cost of their maintenance. The President remarks that the proposed wording works no change in the idea on which the articles of the draft Declaration of Brussels of 1874 were based. However, it offers the advantage of satisfying the opinions expressed at the previous meeting. Mr. Rolin proposes that the words "ministry of war" be superseded by "the military authorities." The wording thus amended is adopted. Article 34 of the draft of 1874 is now read: Individuals in the vicinity of armies but not directly forming part of them, such as correspondents, newspaper reporters, sutlers, contractors, etc., etc., can also be made prisonThese prisoners should however be in possession of a permit issued by the competent authority and of a certificate of identity. ers. The President remarks that the subcommission has before it three proposi tions: 1. That of Messrs. ODIER and LAMMASCH, to resume the discussion of Article 23, already adopted, and to give it the following wording: Individuals who form part of the belligerent armed forces, if they fall into the enemy's hands, must be treated as prisoners of war. It is the same with bearers of official dispatches openly carrying out their mission, and with civilian aeronauts instructed to observe the enemy or to maintain communication between the various parts of the army or of the territory. Persons who follow an army without belonging to it, such as newspaper correspondents, sutlers, contractors, and other individuals of similar occupation, if they are in possession of a permit issued by the competent authority and of a certificate of identity, shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war. If this proposition is adopted the present Article 23 will become Article 24. and the present Article 34 will have to be omitted. 2. The alternative proposition, presented by Mr. LAMMASCH in the event that the first proposition should not be adopted. This wording of Article 34 has a simpler appearance and is worded as follows: Other persons in the vicinity of armies, such as newspaper correspondents, sutlers, contractors, and other people of similar occupation shall have the same right to be treated as prisoners of war if they are in possession of a permit issued by the competent authority and of a certificate of identity. 3. That of Mr. ROLIN, which also has the merit of being simple besides embodying the additional advantage of avoiding a definition of the term "prisoners of war," which is a difficult definition to formulate and which it was agreed at the previous meeting to omit. [74] This wording is as follows: Individuals who follow an army without directly belonging to it, such as newspaper correspondents, and reporters, sutlers, and contractors, who fall into the enemy's hands and whom the latter thinks fit to detain, shall enjoy treatment as prisoners of war provided they are in possession of a certificate from the military authorities of the army they were accompanying. The PRESIDENT thinks that Mr. ROLIN's wording is in conformity both with the sense of the present Article 34 and with the observations made at the previous meeting. Mr. Odier does not insist on his proposition. He explains that his chief objection to Article 34 of the Brussels draft was based on the word "also," which would imply the necessity of saying first who may be made prisoners of war. The proposition of Mr. ROLIN is accepted without discussion. The additional articles to the chapter "Prisoners of war," proposed by his Excellency Mr. BEERNAERT, are now read. ARTICLE 1 An information bureau relative to prisoners of war is instituted, on the commencement of hostilities, in each of the belligerent States and, when necessary, in neutral countries which have received belligerents in their territory. The function of this bureau is to reply to all inquiries about the prisoners, to receive from the various services concerned all the information necessary to enable it to make out an individual return for each prisoner of war. It is kept informed of internments and transfers, as well as of admissions into hospital and deaths. It is likewise the function of the information bureau to receive and collect all objects |