5cjxburmr

practice, modern storage systems, such as computer databases, are used rather than storingduplicates of the issued identification cards. 515Producing an identification card to capturing forces is not necessarily a prerequisite for aperson to be entitled to a particular status. Identification cards may become lost, damaged, orstolen during military operations, so a failure to produce an identity card does not necessarilymean that person lacks a particular status. 5164.27.2 POW Protections for Certain Persons Until Status Has Been Determined.Capturing personnel may be unable to establish a detainee’s status, including whether that personis entitled to POW status under the GPW. For example, a detainee might have lost his or heridentity card or the detainee might be a deserter who does not wish to admit that he or she is amember of enemy armed forces.During international armed conflict, should any doubt arise as to whether persons, havingcommitted a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of thecategories enumerated in Article 4 of the GPW, such persons shall enjoy the protection of theGPW until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. 5174.27.3 Competent Tribunal to Assess Entitlement to POW Status or Treatment. The“competent tribunal” in Article 5 of the GPW is often called an “Article 5 tribunal.” In somecases, courts have undertaken to assess whether a detainee is entitled to POW status, 518 but a515 For example, DOD INSTRUCTION 1000.01, Identification (ID) Cards Required by the Geneva Conventions,3(a)(3) (Apr. 16, 2012) (“The duplicate ID card requirements of Article 17 of Reference (f), to facilitateidentification of POWs with the Prisoner of War Information Bureau as delineated in Article 122 of Reference (f),are more adequately met by the information routinely maintained in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility ReportingSystem (DEERS). Accordingly, duplicate ID cards will not be required.”).516 See, e.g., GPW COMMENTARY 64-65 (noting that States at the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949“considered that the capacity in which the person was serving should be a determining factor; the possession of a[nidentification] card is not therefore an indispensable condition of the right to be treated as a prisoner of war, but asupplementary safeguard”).517 GPW art. 5 (“Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having falleninto the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy theprotection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”).Consider AP I art. 45(1) (“A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall bepresumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status ofprisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such statuson his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as towhether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and,therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has beendetermined by a competent tribunal.”).518 See, e.g., United States v. Lindh, 212 F. Supp. 2d 541, 557-58 (E.D. Va. 2002) (assessing whether a capturedTaliban fighter was entitled to POW status under GPW); United States v. Noriega, 808 F. Supp. 791, 794-96 (S.D.Fla. 1992) (assessing whether a captured Panamanian General was entitled to POW Status under GPW); StanislausKrofan & Anor. v. Public Prosecutor, (Singapore Federal Court, 1966), LEVIE, DOCUMENTS ON POWS 732-36(assessing whether captured Indonesian saboteurs were entitled to POW status under GPW); The MilitaryProsecutor v. Omar Mahmud Kassem and Others (Israeli Military Court, Ramallah, Apr. 13, 1969), LEVIE,DOCUMENTS ON POWS 771-80 (assessing whether members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestinewere entitled to POW status under GPW).180