5cjxburmr

Protecting Power during armed conflict. 506 In addition, the ICRC has performed the functions ofthe Central Information Agency for POWs and protected persons during international armedconflict. 507 In order to facilitate access, the ICRC conducts its visits to detention facilities on aconfidential basis, a practice that DoD has sought to respect. 508The ICRC has issued policy proposals or interpretative guidance on a variety ofinternational law issues. Although the ICRC’s proposals and interpretations do not have bindinglegal effect, they have often been helpful to States. In some cases, the United States and otherStates have not accepted the ICRC’s proposals or interpretations and instead expressed opposingviews. For example, the United States has not accepted the ICRC’s study on customaryinternational humanitarian law nor its “interpretive guidance” on direct participation inhostilities. 5094.27 DETERMINING THE STATUS OF DETAINEES IN CASES OF DOUBT4.27.1 Identification Cards Used to Help Clarify Status. The 1949 Geneva Conventionscontemplate that identification cards will be used to help clarify the status of detainees ininternational armed conflict. 510 Parties to the GPW must provide identity cards to persons undertheir jurisdiction who are liable to become POWs. 511 Similarly, Parties to the GWS mustprovide retained personnel with a special identity card that denotes their status. 512 Capturingunits should not take these identity cards from POWs or retained personnel. 513 In addition,States should retain duplicate copies of identification cards that they issue. 514 In contemporary506 Refer to § 18.15.2.3 (Impartial Humanitarian Organizations Assuming Humanitarian Functions Performed byProtecting Powers Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions).507 Refer to § 9.31.3 (Central POW Information Agency); § 10.31.3 (Central Information Agency for ProtectedPersons).508 See, e.g., American Civil Liberties Union v. Department of Defense, 389 F. Supp. 2d 547, 554 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)(noting that DoD policy “requires confidential treatment of all ICRC communications”). For discussion of the ICRCpractice of confidentiality, see Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simic et al., ICTY Trial Chamber, IT-95-9, Decision on theProsecution Motion Under Rule 73 for a Ruling Concerning the Testimony of a Witness, 45-74 (Jul. 27, 1999);Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simic, et al., ICTY Trial Chamber, IT-95-9, Separate Opinion Of Judge David Hunt OnProsecutor’s Motion For A Ruling Concerning The Testimony Of A Witness, 14-33 (Jul. 27, 1999).509 Refer to § 19.25 (2005 ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law); § 5.9.1.2 (AP I, Article51(3) Provision on Direct Participation in Hostilities).510 See, e.g., GPW COMMENTARY 52 (“If need be, any person to whom the provisions of Article 4 [of the GPW] areapplicable can prove his status by presenting the identity card provided for in Article 17.”).511 Refer to § 9.4.3 (Issue of Identification Cards to Persons Liable to Become POWs).512 Refer to § 7.9.2 (Use of Identification Card to Help Establish Retained Personnel Status).513 GPW art. 17 (“The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be takenaway from him.”); GWS art. 40 (“In no circumstances may the said personnel be deprived of their insignia oridentity cards nor of the right to wear the armlet. In case of loss, they shall be entitled to receive duplicates of thecards and to have the insignia replaced.”).514 GWS art. 40 (Identity cards for military medical and religious personnel “should be made out, if possible, at leastin duplicate, one copy being kept by the home country.”); GPW art. 17 (Identity cards for prisoners of war “[a]s faras possible … shall be issued in duplicate.”).179