Religious Law

Religious Rights and Freedom of Belief in Peacetime and in Times of Armed Conflicts
Religious rights and freedom of belief was never expected to be a reason for waging a war. In contrast, they were granted to all and respected by all, including the enemies. Unfortunately, in recent years, this protection has been subject to consecutive violations. Religious differences have become a common excuse to wage wars. People are forced to change their religion or discard their belief, or at least pretend to believe in a certain religion, just to be safe. Moreover, religious personnel and worship places have become main targets of military attacks. The aim of this article is to examine the legal protection given by international law to religion, religious personnel, and worship places, in both, peacetime, and in times of armed conflict.
Section one; explains how the protection of religious rights has changed over the years.
Section two explores the definition of religious rights and freedom of belief in international law. It also attempts to define religion and belief.
Section three focuses on the protection of religious rights and freedom of belief in peacetime. It also discusses the instruments that provide such protection. Section four, however,
focuses on the protection of religious rights and freedom of belief in times of armed conflict.
This section also clarifies the importance of religion in times of armed conflict. Finally, section five addresses the jurisprudence of the international criminal courts pertaining to religious rights and freedom of belief.
Last but not least, this article concludes how religions could maintain a peaceful relationship among nations, and how believers of all religions should love each other, and not allow officials or individuals to abuse religious matters for political goals.

Religious Rights and the Freedom of Belief under the Focus of
the International Criminal Tribunals
Dr. Eisa Al-Enizy

1. Introduction:
The protection of religious rights is not a new matter. In the Greece of the city-states, great pan-Hellenic sanctuaries such as Olympus, Delos, Delphi and Dodone were recognised as sacred and inviolate ("ieroi kai asuloi").
Acts of violence were prohibited within their walls, and a vanquished enemy could claim sanctuary there. In mediaeval Europe, codes of chivalry protected churches and monasteries.
In the fourth century, full protection was accorded by Allah and His Prophet Mohammed to the Christian inhabitants of Najran regarding their life, land, nationhood, property and wealth, even to "those who are residing as their dependants in the vicinity villages of Najran and to those living in Najran and outside the country, their priests, monks, churches, and everything whether great and small." Similarly, Prophet Mohammed and his successor Qualifah Abo Baker warned Muslim combatants from killing religious personnel or destroying worship houses. As long as Jews and Christians did not commit acts of war or provided physical assistance to the enemies, they were living safely, practicing their daily life among Muslims in Medinah (Saudi Arabia) more than 1,400 years ago. However, Muslims killed the Jews of Koraithah, as they had provided the enemies with physical support in order to attack Muslims.
Even in Europe, restrictions were imposed over the participation of religious personnel in the armed conflict. The norms of the Catholic Church established two related prohibitions over religious personnel of the Church: clergy were not to be targeted in military campaigns, and they were not allowed to actively engage in warfare.
Unfortunately, in recent years this protection offered in times of armed conflict was violated on numerous occasions. Religion was used as an excuse raised as an excuse to defeat other nations.
For example Slobodan Milosevic led a severe war against Muslims in the ex-Yugoslavia, where thousands of Muslims were buried alive, tortured and mosques were demolished or targeted. Similarly, in Palestine, religious personnel were hunted and mosques targeted.
The Holy mosque, Al-Aqsa, was burned in 1969 and in early 1994, Dr. Baruch Goldstein attacked Muslims praying in Hebron’s Cave of the Patriarchs, thereby killing 35 innocent worshippers. In Sudan, the civil war that took place between the South and the North of the country was also based on religious pretexts.
According to some sources, the Islamic Sudanese government refused to share the resources of the South with the Christians inhabitants of this part of Sudan. Christian and other non-Muslim families continue to be captured, sold into slavery, and converted forcibly to Islam.
The success achieved by the Southern Sudanese encouraged Western Sudanese, in Darfur, to raise similar claims against the Sudanese government.
Even more sadly, September 11th and the ensuing “war on terror” led to an increasing number of attacks on religious grounds against both persons and buildings.
Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind of the September 11th 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and on the Pentagon in Washington D.C., used Islam as pretext to legitimise such attacks.
As a response, the US President George W. Bush waged a war against terrorism, thus severely harming Muslim nations around the world, for he used the term “Crusade” to describe his war on terrorism. As a result hate crimes were committed against Muslims in the U.S. and in the United Kingdom. Since then, Muslims and Islamic properties have been subjected to certain number of violations. Muslims were illegally captured, imprisoned and prevented from basic civil rights. Properties were illegally traced, seized and frozen or confiscated. Finally, the Holy Qoran was humiliated in Guantanamo Bay and in Israeli prisons. Various religious groups, including minorities, were targeted around the world. More specifically, certain Shiite as well as Sunnite religious figures were subjected to criminal attacks in Iraq. Moreover, buildings such as synagogues, churches, temples, and mosques became the target of attacks. Synagogues were attacked on 11 April 2002, in Djerba (Tunisia) and on 15 November 2003, in Istanbul (Turkey).
Churches were targeted in Iraq on 2 August, and 11 September 2004, Islamabad, Pakistan on 25 December 2002, and in India in 21 May and 8 and 25 June 2000 as well.
Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind of September 11th 2001 attacks on World Trade Center in N.Y. and Pentagon building in Washington D.C., used Islam as pretext to legitimize such attacks. As a respond to September 11th attacks, George W. Bush, the American President, waged a war against terrorism, severely harm Muslim nations around the world. Bush, the President of the most civilized nation in the world, used the term of "Crusade" to describe his war on terrorism. Hate crimes were committed against Muslims in the U.S.A. and United Kingdom. Since then, Muslims and Islamic properties were subject to certain number of violations. Muslims were illegally captured, imprisoned and prevented from basic civil rights. Properties were illegally traced, seized and frozen or confiscated. Finally, the Holly Qoran was humiliated in Gantanamo Bay, the American military base, and in Israeli prisons.
In July 2005, the American Representative, Tom Tancredo, a Republican from Colorado, called upon the attack of Islamic holly sites, such as Mecca, if terrorists struck several USA cities with nuclear weapons.
Furthermore, Slobodan Milosevic led a severe war against Muslims in the ex-Yugoslavia, where thousands of Muslims were buried alive, tortured and Mosques were demolished or targeted. Similarly, in Palestine, religious personnel were hunted, mosques were targeted. The Holly mosque, Al-Aqsa, was burned in 1969. And in early 1994, Dr. Baruch Goldstein, a resident of the Jewish settlement, Kiryat Arba, near Hebron, had attacked Muslims praying in Hebron's Cave of the Patriarchs, killing 35 innocent worshippers.
Moreover, in Sudan, civil wars took place in South and West of the country. This war based on religious pretexts. According to some resources, the Islamic Sudanese government refused to share power or richness of the South with the Christians habitants of South Sudan. Christian and other non-Muslim families continue to be captured, sold into slavery, and converted forcibly to Islam. The success achieved by the Southern Sudanese encouraged Western Sudanese, in Darfure, to raise the religious violation committed by the Sudanese government to achieve similar independence in the South.
Lebanon was not far from this trend.
Once the Syrian troops pulled out of the country in April 2005, Muslims and Christians were blaming each other for the disorder in the country, which pushed the country to the edge of a civil war.
Iraq was another example, where Mosques and Churches were targeted by both Allied armed forces and Iraqi insurgents. Targeting Shiite as well as Sunnite religious figures, all around the country, was behind the extended civil war in Iraq.
As a rule, using religion as a pretext to wage a war that achieves political goals is completely unacceptable, and internationally illegal. The goal of this article is to provide the legal protection assured by the international law to religion, religious personnel, and worship places.
This article will highlight on the international law rules that assures protection of the religious practice, believe, properties, personnel, and worships, in peace time and in times of armed conflict.
Chapter I will examine the definition of religious rights and freedom of belief in international law;
Chapter II will focus on the protection of religious rights and freedom of belief in peacetime;
Chapter III will survey the protection of the religious rights and freedom of belief in times of armed conflict;
Chapter IV will address the international criminal courts that provide for a protection to religious rights and freedom of belief.

Chapter I: The Definition of the Religious Rights and Freedom of Belief in International Law

What are religion and belief? Are they subjected to the international law rules? Does the international law give them the appropriate interest and concern? The answer for these questions will be the main goal of this chapter.

A) Attempts to Define Religion And Belief:

Religion was defined as "a system of faith and worship usually involving belief in a supreme being and usually containing a moral or ethical code . . . In construing the protection under the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, courts have interpreted the term religion quite broadly to include a wide variety of theistic and non-theistic beliefs.
" The most common religions are Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Legally, all beliefs, including the "belief not to believe," is a sort of religion that joy the protection of the international law.
However, the freedom of religion was defined by the Black's Law Dictionary as "the right to adhere to any form of religion or none, to practice or abstain from practicing religious beliefs, and to be free from governmental interference with or promotion of religion, as guaranteed by the First Amendment and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution."
Most of the international law instruments distinguish between the terms “religion and belief”.
The only definition that's accepted in this article is of the international law, which provides the appropriate protection. Despite the fact that the term “religion” remains undefined as a matter of international law, religion maintains its position as a spiritual need for humans. This need reflects on the relation between the individual and his God. Even the absence of such relationship can be interpreted as religion.
Some scholars describe the belief of any sort, including atheism, or what one might call the absence of belief, is a kind of religious liberty.
From an international law perspective, this relationship, between the individual and his God, should be drawn by the individual or groups of individuals to meet their spiritual needs.
Religions are the major religions descendent from God, and each has its own messenger.
Religions are limited in Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Since the source of those religions is the same, God, they have number of similarity and meet with several rules. Everyone have the right to belief in those religions, other than them, or belief not to believe.
It is necessary illustrate that religious rights and freedom of belief do not conflict with other individual human rights. For example, the idea, called by some fanatic Muslims, of Islamic domination around the world, is not acceptable in the international law, where it prevents other individuals from believing in other religions or to change their Islamic faith.
A broad definition to the religion was adopted by the commentators of San Remo Manual. They presumed that “religious mission” covers voyages undertaken for missionary and “perhaps” humanitarian work organized by religious orders, but exclude expressis verbis missions using force or advocating the use of force for religious ends. Accordingly,
international protection to personnel and properties should be granted to all personnel and properties that employed in humanitarian mission, whether exercised by humanitarian or religious groups. However, the usage of force always put an end to such protection.
The absence of the definition, of the “religion” term, does not mean that all elements of the religious rights lacuna such definition. For instance, religious personnel subjected to the protection of the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) are defined without distinction between religion and another. Article 8(d) of the Additional Protocol I defined religious personnel as
military or civilian persons such as chaplains who are exclusively engaged either temporarily or permanently in the work of their ministry (spiritual assistance) and attached to the armed forces or to medical units, medical transports, or civil defense organizations.
So any spiritual supports provided to the needy can be classified as religious mission, and consequently, requires protection to all personnel participating in such mission.
Beside the protection of religious personnel, the international law provide similar protection to the religious properties as well. Under religious property, all movable and non-movable properties, such as buildings, lands, cars, and funds can be classified.

Moreover, some religions require the existence of certain holly places for the practice of followers, such as Mosques, Churches and Tumbles.

Those holly worship places are subject to international law protection in peacetime and during armed conflict.
The nature of religious rights, their limits and exceptions will be highlighted in the next few pages.

B) The Content of Religious Rights and Freedom of Belief:

The religious rights and freedom of belief can be examined under five umbrellas: the right not to be subject to any sort of discrimination, the right to establish and maintain religious places, the children and minorities religious rights and freedom of belief, and the exceptional limits to such rights.

1)Non-Discrimination Right:

The majority of international law instruments, of peacetime and times of armed conflict, prohibit all sort of discrimination, including the one that takes place on religion ground.
Religious discrimination was defined by the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis.” Accordingly the state should deal with individuals without any consideration to their religions or believes. Therefore, any discrimination should be illegal and its legal effect should be abolished.
Non discrimination in religious rights and freedom of belief should include the right of every one to belief or not to believe, to believe in what and whom, and to change this religion or belief at any time.
1-The Right To Have A Religion and To Freely Believe Without Discrimination:
Every one has the right to have a religion and to believe freely without discrimination. Individuals might practice this right individually or with others. Such right was confirmed by the majority of human rights' instruments. For instance, Principle 18 of the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights (UDHR) provides that “everyone has the right to freedom of thoughts, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change one’s religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in the community, to manifest one’s religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
The UDHR was not limited to the prohibition of discrimination based religious ground, but, it went further to clarify the umbrella of such protection.
Principle 18 prohibits religious discrimination when it is only believing right, prisoned in the cell of the hart or the brain, and manifestation right, expressed by the practice and acts of believers.
If the legal effect of the UDHR is argued in international law, there are other international instruments that are binding, and prohibit all sort of discrimination, including that based on religious ground.
For example, article 20 (2) of the Covenant of the Political and Civil Rights (CPCR) provides that
any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. Accordingly, state members should face religious discrimination by enacting legislations that eliminate all kind of discrimination, including the religious one. The negative position of the local authorities, by abstaining from enacting local legislations against religious discrimination, will provoke state responsibility for such human right's violation. Beside the universal instruments, regional instruments prohibit religious discrimination as well. For example, article 9 (1) of the European Covenant for human Rights provides that
[e]veryone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
Similarly, Article 10 (1-2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of 2000, provides that
[e]veryone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. The right to conscientious objection is recognized, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right.
Unfortunately, after assuring a broad religious rights, in both European Convention for Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights for the European Union, the latter requires that such right should recognized in accordance with the national laws.
National laws are varies regarding religious right, which might bring the protection of religious rights step back. For example, in a laic country such as France, the recent years prove that national legislations impose limits over religious manifestations and education. On the American echelon, Article 12 of the American Convention for Human Rights provides that “[e]veryone has the right to freedom of conscience and of religion.” This right was confirmed in Article 3 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, when provides that “[e]very person has the right freely to profess a religious faith, and to manifest and practice it both in public and in private.” Despite the fact that the American Convention is binding, it provides only protection to the right of conscience and belief.
However, the non-binding Declaration provides, beside the right of conscience and belief, the right to profess a religious faith, and to manifest and practice such right. Non-discrimination right should not be provided to adults only, children, as well, should not be subject to discrimination. For example, Article 5 (3) of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief provides that “[t]he child shall be protected from any form of discrimination on the ground of religion or belief.”
Similarly, the importance of religious rights and freedom of belief is not limited to peacetime. In times of emergencies, human needs to respond to his intellectual needs, especially in the religion area. In emergency situations, refugees are granted religious rights and the right to belief. The refugees are people who were force, in cases of national or international tension, to leave their homes and refuge into neighboring countries, under hard living circumstances. For instance, Article 4 of the Refugee Convention of 1951 provides that “[t]he Contracting States shall accord to refugees within their territories treatment at least as favorable as that accorded to their nationals with respect to freedom to practice their religion.” Refugees’ children should not be prevented from access to religious education, despite their vulnerable situation. Article 4 of the Refugee Convention provides that refugees should have “freedom as regards the religious education of their children.” Current international law recognizes twelve non-derogable core rights, including the right to freedom of religion and prohibition of discrimination on the basis of religion. Those rights are classified as erga omnes binding on all states, members and non-members. All states in the international community have the right supervise the respect of other states to such right, even in the absence of the direct interest. Recently, the report issues, in November 2005, by the U.S.A. Ministry of Foreign Affaires regarding the religious prosecution around, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were accused of limiting religious rights.
2-The Right to Change the Religion:
The freedom of belief includes the right to change this belief or to switch religion, without discrimination among humans. Accordingly, providing certain individuals or group of individuals the right to change their belief or to switch religion is a sort of discrimination. For example, most Buddhist States impose limitations on minority faiths within their borders, sometimes in a dramatic fashion. In Bhutan, both proselytism by citizens of non-Buddhist faiths and also religious conversions are prohibited. Similarly, most Islamic legal systems make it semi-impossible to convert to other religion. All Islamic countries historically imposed anti-apostasy laws on their Muslim citizens. The penalty for conversion out of Islam was death in most Muslim states. The content of the Draft of article 18 of the UDHR, especially the right to change one's religion, was behind the Saudi abstention from voting in favor the UDHR. This attitude, was rejected by article 10 of the Islamic Declaration for Human Rights when provides that “Islam is the religion of true unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of pressure on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to force him to change his religion to another religion or to atheism.” Since the UDHR classifies the freedom to belief under the umbrella of freedom of thinking. Accordingly, the right to change the religion or beliefs should be maintained as long as the human is maintaining his ability to think, and change his believes. Regionally, The American Convention for the Human Rights includes the right to change religion within the religious rights and freedom of belief. Article 12 of the American Convention provides that the religious rights “includes freedom to maintain or to change one's religion or beliefs, and freedom to profess or disseminate one's religion or beliefs, either individually or together with others, in public or in private.” The right to change person's belief should take place deliberately, without any sort of pressure. National legal system in Kuwait granted, in the constitution, the right not to be subject to any kind of discrimination. Article 26, of the Kuwaiti Constitution of 1962, provides that “the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” Article 29 of the Kuwaiti Constitution confirmed article 26, when it requires all governmental bodies and citizens to avoid all kind of discrimination, including the religious one, within the territory of Kuwait. Accordingly, if the non-Muslims have the right to convert their belief to Islam, Muslims should, legally, have the right to convert their belief to other religion, of not to belief.

2)Establishing and Maintaining Religious Places

Religious rights and freedom of belief needs in most of the cases a place of practice. Places of worship should be established protected and maintained. Article 6 (a) of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief provides that worship places should be allowed to be “establish and maintain places for these purposes.” Just recently, Churches were allowed to be built in some Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia. Up to the moment of the preparation of this paper, Synagogues and Tumbles are not existed in most of the Islamic countries. This absence can be attributed to the absence of such believers in those religions, or their lacuna of power. Despite the Islamic form of the Kuwaiti legal system, religious groups, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, freely practice their religions and beliefs.

3)Child Freedom of Religious:

Spiritual needs are not excluded for adults only. Children as well have spiritual needs, religious rights and freedom of belief. However, only parents, or guardians have the rights to interfere in this choice. Children should be raised up in a way that assures the respect of religious rights and freedom of belief. According to Article 5 (3) of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief “[they] shall be brought up in a spirit of . . . respect for freedom of religion or belief of others.” No one should prevent the child from his religious rights and freedom of belief, or to be subject to discrimination in enjoying such rights or freedom. Article 24 of the Covenant of the Political and Civil Rights provides that Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, color, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State. This right was regionally approved as well. Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the European Covenant provides that “the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.” Parents and guardians may have a sort of supervision over their children’s religious rights and freedom of belief. Article 13 (3) of the Covenant for Social, Economic, and Cultural Rights provides that parents and guardians have a liberty and freedom before the State “to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.” Similarly, Article 5 (1) of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief provides that The parents or, as the case may be, the legal guardians of the child have the right to organize the life within the family in accordance with their religion or belief and bearing in mind the moral education in which they believe the child should be brought up. Article 12 of the American Convention for Human Rights provides that “[p]arents or guardians, as the case may be, have the right to provide for the religious and moral education of their children or wards that is in accord with their own convictions.” It is remarkable that the parents have a broad liberty regarding the child religious rights. However, the situation is not determined in case of different believe between both parents, and who should control such right the father or the mother? The only conflict that was addressed in international law is the conflict between the well of the child and tell of his parents or guardians. In such case, the latter will prevail. Article 5 (2) of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief provides that “[e]very child shall enjoy the right to have access to education in the matter of religion or belief in accordance with the wishes of his parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, and shall not be compelled to receive teaching on religion or belief against the wishes of his parents or legal guardians, the best interests of the child being the guiding principle.

4)Religious Minorities’ Rights And Freedom of Belief:

Minorities are subject to protection in the international law. Among the protected minorities is the religious one. Especially that the religious rights and freedom of belief were granted to be expressed individually or in groups. Those groups could include minorities and majorities of certain society. The minority is a group of people numerically less than the majority of the nation, un-powerful, its members meet in ethical, religious, linguistic characteristic different than the rest of the nation, show a feeling of solidarity among its members. Minorities are mostly subject to violation of religious rights and freedom of belief. Accordingly, specific protection was granted by most of the international law instruments to these religious minorities. Article 27 of the Covenant on Political Civil Rights provides that “religious … shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to … practice their own religion.” The international community is maintaining the respect of minorities’ religious rights abroad. For example, in the end of September 2005, the United States gave the authorities in Saudi Arabia six months to respond to the human rights requirements regarding the improvement of respecting religious minorities’ rights.

5)Exceptional Limits to Religious Rights And Freedom of Belief:

It is very important to illustrate the difference between the freedom of thought (core rights), conscience and religion from one part and the freedom to manifest religion or belief (non-core rights) from another part. No limitations upon the freedom of thought and freedom to profess a religion or belief are permissible. In contrast, the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief may be subject to restraints imposed to protect other human rights and the various societal interests recognized by international human rights instruments. Accordingly, states may derogate non-core religious rights and freedom of belief, only in two cases: During war or public emergencies, and in order to protect national security, public health, safety, morals or the right and freedom of others. The derogation is not imperative, but possible, only in cases that are described as emergencies, and according to the law. This limitation was set forth in article 12 of the African Charter (AC) when provides that “[n]o one shall be subject to restrictions that might impair his freedom to maintain or to change his religion or beliefs.” Religious rights and freedom of belief requires some times a practice or action by the individual or the group of individuals. Such practice should be secures and assured as long as it does not conflict with the public interests of the countries where they take place. Fundamental human rights, such as the religious rights and freedom of belief, can only be limited when it is necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. Accordingly, religious belief is completely assured. The African Charter provides in Article 8 that “[f]reedom of conscience, the profession and free practice of religion shall be guaranteed. No one may, subject to law and order, be submitted to measures restricting the exercise of these freedoms.” It is notable that this article provides the national laws with the power to restrict religious practice. Similarly, article 27 of the Arab Charter provides that Adherents of every religion have the right to practice their religious observances and to manifest their views through expression, practice or teaching, without prejudice to the rights of others. No restrictions shall be imposed on the exercise of freedom of belief, thought and opinion except as provided by law.” This article provides two restrictions; one regarding the respect of other’s rights, and the other is the respect of the law. Article 9 of the European Covenant for Human Rights took similar position, when provides that Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Restrictions were included in the American Convention on Human Rights as well. Article 12 of the American Convention provides that [f]reedom to manifest one's religion and beliefs may be subject only to the limitations prescribed by law that are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals, or the rights or freedoms of others. Article 27 (1, 2) of the American Convention provides that in time of war, public danger, or other emergency that threatens the independence or security of a State Party, it may take measures derogating from its obligations under the present Convention to the extent and for the period of time strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination on the ground of . . . religion . . . The foregoing provision does not authorize any suspension of the . . . Article 12 (Freedom of Conscience and Religion). The majority of international instruments joint on the fact that, in order to protect the society and the public, non-core religious right might be restricted in limited circumstances. For example, in Kuwait, the right to belief translated into acts of practice, such practice should not be in conflict with public policy and morals in Kuwait. Hindus living in Kuwait are freely practicing their religious, the Indus. Until the eighties, the used to burn died bodies, as one of the religious practice, which is conflicting with the public policy in an Islamic country and the moral of the habitants. Therefore, and in view to protect the public health and the environment from the smell and the smoke produced by the body fire, this part of the Hindus practice was prohibited in Kuwait. Similarly, the Kuwaiti Constitution in Article 35, limited the freedom of practice, when provides that “freedom of belief is absolute. The State projects the freedom of practicing religion in accordance with established customs, provided that it does not conflict with public policy or morals.” Another example, Muslims practice one of the Islamic perils by traveling to Mecca, in Saudi Arabia, once a life. However, and as a result to the events took place in 1987, in Mecca by some Iranian pilgrims, Saudi Authorities, through the Organization of the Islamic Conference, limited the number of pilgrims of each country by a certain quota. In the present time, to face the terrorism threat, authorities in London and the United States are tracking Muslim activities in order to maintain the protection of the public safety. In Kuwait, Traffic Police has the right to request from a female driver to uncover her face to assure her identification. This right was subject to a great discussion in the Kuwaiti Parliament, was not approved only after the threat of terrorism, in a very narrow circumstances, and by a police woman. So, the right to cover the face as part of some Muslim religious practice was limited to protect the public from dangers. What is the position of the international law towards the religious rights?

C) Religion Rights And Freedom of Belief In International Law:

International Law was founded to serve States directly and the individuals indirectly. Some States declared themselves as religious States. For example, in Saudi Arabia and the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan, Islam was the main source for legislation in the country. Kuwait was declared as Islamic country, but Islam was among the sources of legislation. The Vatican was historically declared as Christian State. Israel was founded as Hebrew State. However some others States preferred to separate between the religion and the State, such as in Turkey and France. Religious influence was not limited on the state itself, but reflected on its relationship with the international community. For example, Most Muslim countries, until recent time, refused to establish diplomatic relation with Israel. They even established, in September 25, 1969, an international organization, the Organization of the Conference Islamic (OCI). It is named after Islam, created to achieve Islamic goal, the liberation of Palestine and the return of Al-Aksa Mosque, and do not accept only Muslim member States. In international law, human rights are protected in peacetime and in times of armed conflicts. Both branches of international law, International Human Rights and IHL, assure the protection of numerous human rights, including the religious rights. As human body needs for medical relief, his moral needs spiritual relief. If medical services can provide such relief, in peacetime and in times of armed conflicts, religious personnel can provide spiritual relief too. Medical care should be provided, available, and medical properties and building should be protected too. Similarly, religious practice, assistance, properties and worships should be protected as well. When an international crises takes place, such as armed conflict or hostage situation high rank religious personnel interfere to solve such crisis or attenuate the humanitarian situation in it. The Pope Jean Paul II, pledge to the former Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, and the present American President, George W. Bush, to avoid the war on Iraq. He interferes to the Israeli government to solve the hostage situation in the holly church in Palestine. Muslim leader, in Australia, visited Iraq in 2005, to assist in releasing an Australian citizen kidnapped in Iraq by the local insurgency. One of the main goals international law seeks to achieve is maintain the peace and the international security around the world. In the absence of religious protection, threat of religious personnel, practice, properties and worship international peace and security last under threat. “[D]isregard and infringement of human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or whatever belief, have brought, directly or indirectly, wars and great suffering to mankind, especially where they serve as a means of foreign interference in the internal affairs of other States and amount to kindling hatred between peoples and nations.” In Jul. 7th, 2005, as revenge from the England intervention in Iraq, some fanatic Muslims blow up buses and subways in London, Iraqi insurgency still kidnap and attack foreign citizens and armed force members. Protection of the religion in international law requires definition of some of the religious elements that are cited in international law instruments, such as the religion, religious personnel and religious mission.

Chapter II: Religion Protection and Freedom of Belief in Peace Time

Religion is one of the civil rights assured by the international law rules. Number of international human rights instruments assures the religious protection in peacetime. It was considered in the UDHR, the CPCR, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the American Convention on Human Rights, American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: the African Charter of Human Rights and People’s, the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, and Council of the League of Arab States, and Arab Charter on Human Rights.

A) Specialized Instruments Protecting Religious Rights:

The Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief is the only specialized instrument that examines religious rights. The Declaration did not exclude anyone from the right of religion and freedom of belief. It classifies the religious rights and freedom of belief as “fundamental elements in human’s conception of life” that can only be limited when it is necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. The preamble of the Declaration did not require only that religious freedom should be granted, but also it should be guaranteed. Guaranteeing the religious freedom requires positive attitude from the local authorities. So abstaining from intervening in the freedom of religious does not totally exclude States from responsibility regarding the violations of religious freedom. Therefore, laws and regulations should be enacted and enforced to assure such freedom. In balancing, between the religious rights from one part, and the UN Charter, other relevant UN instruments, the purposes and principles of this Declaration from other part, the later will prevail. For example, no religious basis may be accepted as an excuse to launch an attack or wage a war in contradiction with the UN goals of maintaining the international peace and security. Accordingly, all terrorist activities committed by religious fanatic around the world are illegal and outlaw. Religious groups not only required to abstain from committing violation to international law rules, but they are in a position to take action and participate in the attainment of the goals of world peace, social justice and friendship among peoples and to the elimination of ideologies or practices of colonialism and racial discrimination. Accordingly, in order to solve international crises, religious figures should interfere to solve such crises, prevent the occurrence of an armed conflict, or to attenuate humanitarian situations. Jean Paul II called both, the former American President, George Bush, and the former Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, to refrain from recurring to the force in solving the differences. Similarly, in 2005, an Australian Muslim figure visited Baghdad to pledge fore the release of an Australian citizen kidnapped in Iraq. United Nations, as an international organization, should consider the value of religious personnel in solving international crises. The Secretary General of the UN designed formed Ministers of Foreign Affairs as mediators in international crisis. However, never heard of a religious figure to be designed by the U.N. as an mediator or special envoy in a religious conflict, such as in North Ireland and the Ex-Yugoslavia. Despite the importance of this document, as an specialized one, it’s legal value does not amount to the level that can oblige member states to imply such rules. Accordingly, no one can base on religious declaration to file, a national or international, case to assure compliance with it’s content, unless such document was included in the national legal system.

B) General Instruments Protection Religious Rights:

The general instruments that deal with human rights including the religious ones can be divided into universal and regional instruments.

1) Universal Instruments:

1-The Universal Declaration of the Human Rights (UDHR),
After experiencing the religious differences between States, which caused, among other reasons, the waging of World War II, the UDHR was adopted in 1948 to avoid any future religious conflicts. The UDHR classifies the religious rights among the right of freedom of thinking, because believing and deciding what religion to follow is part of the thinking abilities. The right to think reflects on the individual’s position toward his religion, to belief or not, and believe in what or whom. Since this ability is not completely available for children, as previously examined, their parents or guardians have the right to direct such religious rights and freedom of belief. The inclusion of this principle in the UDHR was one of the pretext based on which Saudi Arabia abstain from accepting the UDHR in 1948. In Kuwait, certain cases were filled against Kuwaiti citizens, such as Hussein Kambar case, based on the changing Islamic religion into other religion. Until 1990, Shiite and Christians freedom of religion was not completely assured in Kuwait. The international community pressures the Kuwaiti government to assure the religious freedom in Kuwait. Accordingly, in the present time, almost in each Kuwaiti region, there is a Shiite Mosque, as well as the number of Churches is increasing in Kuwait, beside the designation of a Kuwaiti national Bishop. Kuwaiti constitution adopted number of the UDHR principles. According to Article 30 of the Kuwaiti constitution no distinction should take place between citizens based on any reason, even though based on the religion. Despite the fact that the UDHR was not rejected by a single State, it lacunas the necessary legal force that obliges member States to apply its contents. 2-The Covenant of the Political and Civil Rights (CPCR), The CPCR was adopted in 1966 and entered into force in 1976. It assures religious rights and freedom of believe in articles 18, 20, 24, and 27. Article 18 provides that “1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. 2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice. 3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. 4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.” Member states of the CPCR are bound to respect its content. It has the legal value of an international treaty, which hold states responsible, before the international community, for violations committed within their territory. A special committee was created by the Optional Protocol to the CPCR, to receive complains from individuals subject to violations within states members to the Protocol and the CPCR.
3-The Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR),
CESCR create a connection between religious rights and education, where education can always promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among religious groups. Such environment in the early educational stages may eliminate hate among religious groups and stabilize respect and love among them. The CESCR was adopted in 1966, by the member of the UN GA in parallel with the CPCR. CESCR obtains the legal value of an international treaty, which held state members responsible for violations committed within their territory to its content. The difference between CPCR and the CESCR is that the rights within the first must maintained equally, in full and without no delay. However, in the latter human rights can be maintained based ob the ability of the country. Since abilities are vary from country to another, according to this ability human rights are maintained. The ability of a rich country to maintain religious rights and the freedom of believing is not the ability of poor country. However, the rights that are included in the CPCR are fundamental, meanwhile, the rights included in the CECSR are not. Which means that national authorities cannot prevent individuals to believe or change such belief, but, in the same time, if they are incapable to provide affordable religious education there will be no legal responsibility.
4-The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees,
This convention provides protection to refugees. Among this protection it assures their religious rights and their children’s religious education, as previously mentioned. The convention as well prohibits member states from expelling or returning refuges to a country where his life or freedom are threatened based on his religious. Article 33 (1) of the refugees convention provides that “[n]o Contracting State shall expel or return ("refouler") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”
5-Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, of 1948:
Genocide is the international crime that target members of a group, including religious one. Religious group might get killed, harmed, or destroyed because of their religion or belief. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, of 1948 was enacted to prevent such violation. According article 2 of the convention, the genocide “means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” This instrument describes acts committed against members of groups, including religious group, as a punishable crimes, without distinction if it was committed by “constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.”

2) Regional Instruments:

1-The European Covenant for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,
The European covenant included fundamental human rights, included the religious ones, meanwhile the political and social rights were included in the European Social Charter. Rights within the European Covenant are enforced through member States and the European Court For Human Rights (ECHR). Despite the adoption of the religious rights and freedom of belief in the European Convention for Human Rights, the decisions of the court to assure the respect of this right are rare. The decision that can be illustrated in the occurrence adopted in the case Kokkinakis v. Greece, in which the Court held that state's conduct violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
2-The American Convention on Human Rights,
The AC examined religious rights and freedom of belief in Article 12. Protection of individual was not limited to citizens. Aliens should not be deported or returned to a country where their live or freedom may be threatened based on their religious belief. Article 22 (8) of the AC provides that “[I]n no case may an alien be deported or returned to a country, regardless of whether or not it is his country of origin, if in that country his right to life or personal freedom is in danger of being violated because of his . . . religion.” The respect of the content of the AC for HR is subject to supervision by the American Court for HR.
3-The African Charter of Human Rights and People’s Rights:
Africa is one of the areas that is the theatre of human tragedies. In certain cases, people flea seeking shelter in neighboring countries. Hosting countries may respond in expulsing them back to their home country or else where. Expulsing based on religion is completely prohibited. Article 12 (5) of the African Charter provides that “[t]he mass expulsion of non-nationals shall be prohibited. Mass expulsion shall be that which is aimed at national, racial, ethnic or religious groups.”
4- Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam:
Cairo Declaration adopted within the Islamic Conference Organization. Most of Islamic countries lacuna the democracy, where dictators control the countries. Such system allow human rights violations, including religious rights and freedom of belief. As a result, Article 18 (a) of the Cairo Declaration provides that “[e]veryone shall have the right to live in security for . . . his religion . . .” Unfortunately, the Cairo Declaration has no legal power to oblige member States of the ICO to respect its content
5- Arab Charter on Human Rights:
Arab Charter for HR was adopted within the Arab League (AL), to assure human rights including the religious rights and freedom of belief.

Chapter III: Religion Protection in Armed Conflict

Religious difference is one of the most common reasons to wage wars. "[It] has generated more wars, misery and suffering. . . human blood has been shed for thousands of years. History is replete with holy wars and crusades against infidels, religious persecution and oppression, inquisition and autos-da-fe." Flagrant human rights violations take place during armed conflict, where, wrongly, it is believed, wrongly, that during this time, the time of armed conflict, there is no law that reign. Times of armed conflict include both international armed conflicts and civil wars, where the first imply two or more States and the second imply belligerents within the same State. The only law that imply during armed conflicts is the IHL. Is this law concerned with the protection of religious rights? What is the importance of the religious rights during armed conflict? And what are the elements of the religious rights subjected to the protection of the IHL?

A) The Relation Between IHL and the Protection of the Religious Rights:

Most of the flagrant violations, including the violations of religious rights, take place during armed conflict, especially if armed conflict waged to eliminate religious minorities, such as in the former Yugoslavia. During armed conflicts, IHL assures the protection of certain number of individuals, such as civilians, POW's, medical staff and press personnel. Properties also are subject to the protection of the IHL, such as the medical equipments, hospitals, schools, civil buildings, dams, bridges and the natural environment. Religious rights and freedom of belief, religious personnel, properties, and worship places are subjected to the protection of the IHL as well. IHL seeks to attenuate and humanized the effects of armed conflict. No doubt that violating religious rights and freedom of belief, religious personnel, the immunity of religious properties or worship places, do not hurt the body of victims, but hurt their spiritual needs. IHL is concerned to protect religious personnel, religious properties and worship places, because when worship places or religious property are destroyed during an armed conflict, not the place or the property themselves are the goal, but the humans are the targets, whether civilians, protected or religious personnel. When a Mosque is destroyed, that harms the Muslims around the world. When Church is targeted, that hurts the Christians around the world as well. Therefore, to attenuate the armed conflict, IHL should play a major role to humanize the war Watching religious figures mistreated or killed, religion freedom is restricted, religious property confiscated or worships places destroyed may create irreversible damage to the victims and, maybe to, the entire world. Some times, such damage may create a great will of revenge among the members of the present or the future generations, which may cause the wage of a new armed conflict. For example, neglecting religious minorities’ rights in Iraq was behind the fatal civil war in the country. Sunnite attack Shiite and Christians and vice versa.

B) The Importance of Religion in Times of Armed Conflict:

If the main goal of the IHL is to humanize and attenuate the effects of the armed conflicts, religious personnel can play a major role in achieving such goal. The members of the armed forces and protected personnel during armed conflict do not only have a materials needs, the also have a spiritual needs as well. Not only non combatant need to maintain their religious rights and freedom of belief during armed conflict. Even combatant, have such religious needs. [T]he spiritual needs of members of the armed forces are very similar around the globe. Especially during difficult and dangerous missions, the demand for spiritual assistance increases. In the hostile environment of a combat operation, chaplains draw closer to servicemen and -women and their sometimes hidden desire for spiritual stability. Troops make use of the services provided by religious personnel who share their situation and live under the same circumstances but devote themselves to the spiritual well-being of those troops. Religious personnel, whether military or civil, should be subject to the protection of the IHL. However, military religious personnel can meet the spiritual needs of his collogues, more than a civil one can do. In contrast, civil religious personnel can meet the needs of civilians more than military one can do. For the interest of members of the military armed forces, accompanying them with religious personnel became primordial. Charlemagne ordered that his troops in the field must be accompanied by chaplains. The role played by religious personnel in times of armed conflict is to humanize the effect of the war. As a result to this important role attributed to religious personnel, and a kind of appreciation to the mission they devoted themselves to, IHL provides protection that assures the accomplishment of their mission. In 1862, Henry Dunant, in his Memory of Solferino, praised the ministry of Emperor Napoleon’s chaplain, the Abbé Laine, who “[in] the thickest of the fight (…) went from one field hospital to the next bringing consolation and sympathy to the dying”.

C) The Religious Elements Subject to IHL Protection:

Religious personnel, properties and worship places are subject to the protection of the IHL. This protection is founded on the basic principle of distinguishing between military objectives, on the one hand, and civilian persons and objects, on the other. Religious rights and freedom of belies are, as well, assured by the rules of the IHL.

1) Religion Rights and Freedom of Belief:

Religious rights and freedom of belief should not be limited to peacetime. Article 37 of The Lieber Code provides that “The United States acknowledge and protect, in hostile countries occupied by them, religion and morality.” Articles 13 & 27 of the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 prevented any kind of distinction, base on religion, among the populations of the countries in conflict. Moreover, article 27 assured the respect of the religious convictions and practice of protected persons. Accordingly, member states have to translate such respect into actions by providing the necessary locations and materials for such practice. Article 93 pf the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 provides that “[I]nternees shall enjoy complete latitude in the exercise of their religious duties, including attendance at the services of their faith, on condition that they comply with the disciplinary routine prescribed by the detaining authorities. Ministers of religion who are interned shall be allowed to minister freely to the members of their community. . . [T]he Detaining Power shall ensure their equitable allocation amongst the various places of internment in which there are internees speaking the same language and belonging to the same religion. Should such ministers be too few in number, the Detaining Power shall provide them with the necessary facilities, including means of transport, for moving from one place to another, and they shall be authorized to visit any internees who are in hospital. Ministers of religion shall be at liberty to correspond on matters concerning their ministry with the religious authorities in the country of detention and, as far as possible, with the international religious organizations of their faith.” POWs as well should practice their religious rights and freedom of belief, despite their detention in enemy’s camps. Article 37 of the 3rd Geneva convention of 1949 provides that “[w]hen prisoners of war have not the assistance of a retained chaplain or of a prisoner of war minister of their faith, a minister belonging to the prisoners' or a similar denomination, or in his absence a qualified layman, if such a course is feasible from a confessional point of view, shall be appointed, at the request of the prisoners concerned, to fill this office. The detainee of Guantanamo were granted religious rights and freedom of belief. The Presidential order regarding detainee of Gantanamo Bay naval station on the island of Cuba, assures the “free exercise of religion consistent with the requirements of such detention.” The detainees of Guantanamo were preventing from choosing their own religious personnel, Guantanamo is far from being, as précised in the Presidential Order and the International Law instrument, a place of humane treatment and free exercise of religion.

2) Religion Personnel:

Religious rights and freedom of belief cannot be assured in the absence of the protection of religious personnel. A considerable threat aimed at the religious personnel in peacetime and in times of armed conflict. For example, during the civil armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia, “Serb troops rounded up 150 women, children, and old people, in Novo Selo, a village near Zvornik, and forced them at gunpoint into the local mosque. In front of the captives, they challenged the local community leader, Imam Memic Suljo, to desecrate the mosque. They told him to make the sign of the cross, eat pork and finally to have sexual intercourse with a teenage girl. Suljo refused all these demands and was beaten and cut with knives. His fate is unknown.” Another example, can be found in Afghanistan. In November 2001, the Taliban Government captured eight Christians aid workers, four Germans, two Australians, and two Americans, accused of spreading Christianity in the Islamic Republic. The real goal of such capture is to pressure the home countries of those missionaries, including the U.S.A. to avoid the planned attack against the Taliban government, accused of sheltering Al Qaeda. Meeting on the field to attenuate suffer and the pain of the victims was behind the protection granted for both medical and religious personnel. Accordingly, similar protection to the medical personnel should be granted to religious personnel, because, while medical personnel focus on the physical protection of the victims, the religion personnel focus on the spiritual protection of victims. Article 17 of the 4th Geneva Convention gave both religious and medical personnel the same right of passage, when stated that all religions have passage right. Therefore, capturing religious personnel during armed conflict, only because they do not belong to the religion of the state is illegal. In Afghanistan, two American female civilian missionaries were captured by the Taliban prior to the American invasion. However, they were released and treated, according to them, humanly. Article 15 (5) of the API requires that civilian religious personnel should be respected and protected. Religious personnel can be captured not as POWs, but to the service of their captive combatants. The ICRC recommends that one religious personnel per 1,000-2,000 POWs. Any extra number of religious personnel should be released. They benefit from their status as religious personnel and some of the advantages of the POWs. They still can freely exercise their usual activities within the camp, and must be granted all the necessary facilities to practice their religious duties. According to Article 35 of the 3rd Geneva Convention of 1949, “Chaplains who fall into the hands of the enemy Power and who remain or are retained with a view to assisting prisoners of war, shall be allowed to minister to them and to exercise freely their ministry amongst prisoners of war of the same religion, in accordance with their religious conscience . . . They shall be free to correspond, subject to censorship, on matters concerning their religious duties with the ecclesiastical authorities in the country of detention and with international religious organizations.

3) Religion Properties:

Religious properties such as worship places, lands, building, and valuable materials are subject to the protection of the IHL. Mosques, Churches and Synagogues should be excluded from all sorts of military attacks. All parties, member States and insurgents in international and civil war should respect the religious rights and freedom of belief. A countless Churches, Mosques, Synagogues, Temples and cemeteries were destroyed during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Palestine, Israel, Pakistan and India. During the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, about 1000 mosques, 483 Catholic churches and 470 Serbian Orthodox churches damaged or destroyed. Four mosques have the status of cultural monuments, The Husenija Mosque (built 1827), Reuf-Bey Gradascevic Mosque (19th century), Svirac Mosque and Bukvara Mosque had been destroyed. Churches also were subject to similar attacks. The Catholic Church of St. Mark (1888), the Orthodox Church of St. Elijah (1882). In March 2001, the Buddhas of Bamiyan were destroyed in Afghanistan, under the Taliban governance. In each case, the target was not just the monuments, it was also and above all the collective consciousness of the people concerned. However, during the war on Yugoslavia, Serb army targeted sought to eliminate Muslims and demolish mosques. One of the historical mosques was targeted by the Serb. In Palestine, Militants sought refuge into a holly church in Beit Lehem. The Israeli military surrounded the site for several days. Both parties were responsible for the fire into the Church the bombardment of the historical main gate. Religious property hence enjoys threefold protection: it is protected by virtue of being civilian property, and all the provisions regarding the protection of civilian property and objects apply; it is protected more specifically under the provisions on the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict; and finally it is protected by its nature as religious properties. A)Religious Properties Protected As Worship Places Religious properties can be used as worship places, such as mosques, churches, synagogues and temples. Worship places were used as shelter. "Historically, churches afforded sanctuary to those seeking refuge." In Athens, sanctuary seekers in temples were seen as suppliants and held sacred as being under divine protection. Synagogues were used in August- September 2005 as shelter for settlers who oppose evacuation from Israeli settlements. In times of armed conflict all measures must be taken to assure the protection of worship places. The principle of distinguishing between military targets and civilian objects, such as worship places, is main source of worship protection. This principle was retraced in number of IHL treaties. Article 17 of the Brussels Declaration of 27 August 1874 stipulated that if a defended town, fortress or village were to be bombarded, all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to worship.” Article 27 of the 1907 Hague Regulations provides that “[i]n sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion or charitable purposes.” Similar protection was provided by the Additional Protocol I of 1977, when provides in Article 52 that “In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship . . . is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.” Articles 53 (a) of Protocol I and 16 of the AP II provides that “it is prohibited . . . to commit any acts of hostility directed against . . . places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples.” Despite the importance of the protection provided in the previous articles, it is primordial clarify that such protection is not ideal, because states have a large latitude vis-à-vis such protection. The terms used in Brussels Declaration “as far as possible” and the Additional Protocols I and II “willful damage” gives states latitude to escape responsibility.
B)Religious Properties Protected As Cultural and Historical Properties
Some religious properties possess cultural and historical values. Church of Saint Mary in Beit Lehem in Palestine, Al-Aqsa Mosque in Israel, and Mecca in Saudi Arabia have a historical values among religious groups around the world. Charitable funds directed for religious purposes also were damaged as a result to the war on terrorism. As of September, 2002, the U.S. government had frozen $6.3 million in charitable funds and other countries had seized $5.2 million in charitable funds. These concrete results of the financial war on terrorism include the highly publicized seizures of assets of several domestic Muslim organizations. IHL assures protection to cultural and historical properties. Article 52 of the API provides that “in occupied territory, the Convention prohibited the seizure or destruction of, or the inflicting of willful damage to institutions dedicated to historic monuments and works of art, even if they were State property.” Article 53 of Protocol I provides that “it is prohibited: (a) to commit any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples” The Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 18 October 1907 established the principle of immunity for building dedicated to religion, charitable purposes, and historic monuments. Similarly, Article 27 of the 1907 Hague Regulations provides that “[i]n sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to . . . historic monuments.” Article 4(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict provides that “[t]he High Contracting Parties undertake to respect cultural property situated within their own territory as well as within the territory of other High Contracting Parties by refraining from any use of the property and its immediate surroundings or of the appliances in use for its protection for purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage in the event of armed conflict; and by refraining from any act of hostility directed against such property.” The UNESCO Convention of 1954 was directed to protect historical monument. The preamble declares that “The High Contracting Parties [...] convinced that damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contribution to the culture of the world...” In another meaning, each destruction of a historical religious property it is destruction to the property of the human mankind and not only certain religious. Indeed, the deliberate destruction of monuments, places of worship and works of art is a sign of degeneration into total war. It is sometimes the other face of genocide. Article 53 of the AP I provides that “it is prohibited: (a) to commit any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples; (b) to use such objects in support of the military effort; (c) to make such objects the object of reprisals.” Article 16 of the AP II provides that “it is prohibited to commit any acts of hostility directed against historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, and to use them in support of the military effort.”
C)Religious Properties Protected as Civil Objectives:
The principle of distinction between military objectives and civilians or civilian property underlies all the laws and customs of war, and in particular the rules regarding the conduct of hostilities. Under the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, it is forbidden “to destroy or seize the enemy’s property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.” “The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.” Article 4 of the Hague Convention XI of 1907 grants immunity from capture to naval vessels charged with religious missions.
Religious properties are directed to civil task, or non-military task, which is practicing religious activities. Therefore, targeting civil objects would not achieve any military progress. In contrast, such targeting is criminalized in IHL, unless it supports military purposes. Immunity for civil objectives, including religious places, will not be maintained if military activities take place within them. Enforcing international law rules is the fruit of the cooperation between national and international efforts.

Chapter IV: The Role of the International Criminal Tribunals in the Protection of the Religious Rights and Freedom of Belief:

Human rights can be assured, maintained and respected in the light of enforcing international law rules more than enacting them. In another meaning less enforced human rights is better than a lot of violated human rights.
The U. N. Security Council, has displayed an increased willingness to interpret human rights abuse as a threat to the peace, thus permitting action under Chapter VII of the Charter. This was the case in Haiti 1991, Somalia in 1993, Former Yugoslavia in 1993, and in Iraq in 2004.
Basic human rights, such as religious rights and freedom of belief, excluding the rights to practice, are assured by the international law, and all states are obliged to assure, individually or commonly, their respect of such rights as erga omnes rules binding on all states. The ICJ stated, in Barcelona Traction Case, that "an essential distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a State towards the international community as a whole, and those arising vis-a-vis another State in the field of diplomatic protection. By their very nature the former are the concern of all States. In view of the importance of the rights involved, all States can be held to have a legal interest in their protection; they are obligations erga omnes."
Accordingly, States should defend and protect basic human rights, individually or commonly, even if there were not any direct interest from such protection.
This paper will not rise the national protection to the religious rights and freedom of belief, nor on the international efforts that do not produce international criminal bodies. The focus will only target the international criminal tribunals seeking such goal. The international criminal tribunals that play role in protecting religious rights and freedom of belief are the 1) ICTY, 2) ICTR, and the 3) ICC. Accordingly, international law rules providing respect for religious rights and freedom of belief are useless if not enforceable by the international criminal law, that based on the criminalizing acts and creating criminal courts to examine such crimes.
International criminal law is the area of international law that focuses on the enforcement of international law rules. Despite the existence of international political bodies that follow human rights, including religious, violations, international courts are the most efficient international institutions that may provide serious respect to the international law rules, including those related to the religious rights and freedom of belief.
International criminal law is newly introduced and functioned, especially on the protection of religious rights and freedom of belief. All the documents that been examined earlier, do not explicitly criminalize violations of religious rights and freedom of belief, unless such violation form another crime have more legal consideration in the international law. For example, killing members of a religion group is not punishable based on the violation of specialized religion instrument, but based on the violation of general instrument such as the convention of the prevention of all kinds of discrimination.
Despite the repetition of the crimes targeting religious personnel and groups, none of the international criminal sentences pointed that such crime is punishable because it clash with the religious rights and freedom of belief. Sentences committed against religious rights and freedom of belief always based on other protecting other human rights such as non-discrimination or the prevention of genocide.
A) The International Criminal Tribunal For the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) As a result to the flagrant violation to the IHL committed during the war in the former Yugoslavia, since 1991, the Security Council requested the Secretary General to establish impartial commission of experts to evaluate the humanitarian situation in Yugoslavia and the nature of the violation committed in there. The commission’s report was submitted to the S.C., and concluding that there have been grave breaches to the IHL, including “ethnic cleansing, mass killing . . . and destruction of cultural and religious properties,” advocating the establishment of an ad hoc international tribunal. As a result, the S.C. resolution No. 808 (1993) decided to establish an international tribunal to prosecution of persons responsible for the serious violation of the IHL in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991. On May 27, 1993, the S.C. unanimously adopted the Statute of the ICTY. According to Article 1 of the statute of the ICTY the tribunal will have jurisdiction over “persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991.” Based on the distinction made earlier between religious rights and freedom of belief and the practice and manifestation of such rights, only the violation of the first category can be subject to the jurisdiction of the ICTY. The ICTY have jurisdiction over the “seizure of, destruction or willful damage has been done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education.” Similarly, Article 4 of the Statute provides that the tribunal have jurisdiction over “persons committing genocide . . . Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:(a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group . . . The following acts shall be punishable: (a) genocide; (b) conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) attempt to commit genocide; (e) complicity in genocide.” Muslims in the former Yugoslavia were subject to organized genocide and ethnic cleansing, which fall in the jurisdiction of the ICTY. Finally, article 5 of the statute gives the tribunal the power to examine the “persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds.” All the crimes described in the three article of the statute of the ICTY took place in the former Yugoslavia, and examined by the tribunal. Moreover, the ICTY examines cases of genocide and ethnic cleansing committed against religious groups, including Muslims, in the former Yugoslavia. In the case of Dusko Tadic, he was charged of committing Crime against humanity recognized by articles 5(h) (persecution on political, racial and/or religious grounds) and 7(1) of the Statute of the Tribunal. Moreover, as Muslims and Croats marched in columns to assembly points in Kozarac for transfer to camps, Serb forces, including Dusko Tasic, ordered Ekrem KARABASIC, Ismet KARABASIC, Seido KARABASIC and REDO FORIC from the column and shot and killed them. By this participation Dusko Tadic committed grave breach recognized by articles 2(a) and 7(1) of the Statute. In a similar case, the court decided against Dragan Nikolic who “persecuted the Muslim and non-Serb detainees at Susica camp on political, racial and religious grounds, by subjecting them to murders, rapes and torture. Accordingly, such crime was interpreted a crime against the humanity, punishable under Article 5(h) and Article 7(1) of the Statute of the ICTY. Another criminal case was subjected by the ICTY is the case of Mejakic et al. In the occurrence, “Zeljko Mejakic, intending to destroy, in whole or in part, the Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat people as national, ethnic, or religious groups, was complicit, with other persons, in the killing of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from the Opstina Prijedor at the Omarska camp, thereby committing Genocide, a crime recognized by Article 4(a) of the Statute of the Tribunal.” Even the destruction of religious properties was examined by the ICTY, destruction or willful damage of institutions dedicated to religion, namely two Catholic churches, one in the town of Bosanski Samac about and between August 1992 and January 1993 and the other in the village of Hrvatska Tisina, about and between April 1992 and August 1992, and two mosques, one in the town of Bosanski Samac about and between August 1992 and November 1992 and the other in the town of Odzak, in or about July 1992.
B) The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR):
ICTR is a court was directed to examine serious violations committed against the human rights and IHL within Rwanda. The Statute of the ICTR adopted, in article 2, the same text of article 2 of the Genocide Convention, which defines genocide as “any of the . . . acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. . .” Similarly, article 3 of the Statute gave the ICTR competence to examine cases related to “persons responsible for the following crimes when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population on national, political, ethnic, racial or religious grounds: (a)Murder; (b)Extermination; (c)Enslavement; (d) Deportation; (e)Imprisonment; (f)Torture; (g)Rape; (h)Persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds; (i)Other inhumane acts.” Accordingly, any violation that falls within the competence of the ICTR, takes place based on the religious difference will be punished by the tribunal. Most of the violations committed within the competence of the ICTR took place based on ethnical difference. However, the tribunal examined cases related to religious rights and freedom of belief. For example, is the case of Emmanuel Rukundo is former religious personnel in the Rwandan Armed Forces, who acted in incompatible way to his position and duties. Rukundo was charged with genocide and crimes against humanity for murder and extermination, for allegedly issuing orders to attack Tutsi refugees who had fled to church facilities. In the case of Juvenal Kajelijeli, the suspect was charged, in count eight, in committing “Crimes Against Humanity-Persecution on Racial, Political, Religious Grounds Pursuant to Article 3(h) of the Statute.” In another case, the suspect, Hassan Nheze was responsible “for extermination on . . . religious ground.”
C)The International Criminal Court (ICC):
The Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), adopted in Rome on 17 July 1998, is charged to assure the protection of religious personnel, and protection likewise to «those non-confessional non-combatant military personnel carrying out a similar function”, such as religious personnel. The ICC adopted the same definition to the Genocide, pre-adopted by the Genocide Convention and the ad hoc tribunals, which criminalizes any attacks committed based on religious differences. Article 6 of the ICC Statute defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group," which provide more protection to religious groups." Criminalizing violations against religious rights is not limited to violations committed against religious personnel only. The ICC assures the immunity of religious buildings as well. Article 8 of the Statute describes as war crime any "[i]ntentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion . . . or charitable purposes.” In 2004, the Security Council, based on Chapter seven, formed a committee to report the situation in Darfure, Sudan. The report evoke the S.C. to request from the ICC to examine the case, which believed to be include violations to religious rights and freedom of belief. The Muslim regnant regime, in Sudan, is suspected in committing crimes against Christian Sudanese of Darfure. A fifty-one responsible should be interrogated by the Prosecutor, prior to bending the case before the ICC. If the investigations proved the committing of such flagrant violations against the religious rights and freedom of belief, there will be no question that criminals will be sentenced and punished according to the ICC statute. Religious rights and freedom of belief are under the protection of the national system, which in case of fail will be substituted by the International law protection. The International law protection should manifest a considerable and effective protection to human rights, including religious rights and freedom of belief. The effective international protection followed by the international criminal supervision, will encourage effective national protection to the human rights.

Conclusion:

All religions call for peaceful relationship with other believers from other religions, agree on the value of humans, worship places, civil and religious properties. Therefore, no religious pretext should be used or accepted to be used as a pretext to wage a war. Muslims should love their Christians and Jewish brothers and vise versa. Non believers should enter this circle and be partners in such relationship. During armed conflicts, no religious personnel nor religious properties or worship place should be targeted, unless been used in military activities. When Israel evacuated Gaza strip, during August and September 2005, the Israeli army destroyed everything except synagogues, which, unfortunately, have been destroyed by Palestinians. It was going to be a precedent and add enormous credit in favor to the Palestinian cause, if Palestinians show respect for such worships places and provide them with protection from destruction. International law provides protection for religious rights and freedom of belief in peacetime as well in times of armed conflict. However, such protection does not respond to the needs of religious personnel and properties. In the national level a considerable religious rights and freedom of belief are being subject to violation. States have no fear from international system, which based on the State interest. Violations committed against religious rights, properties or personnel should be criminalize as it is, not criminalize because it can form another crime, such as genocide crime or destruction of historical properties. Specialized international conventions assuring the respect of all religions should be concluded, signed and ratified by all the states. Criminalizing the usage of religious pretexts as an excuse to wage a war or commit international crimes should be included in such conventions. Moreover, An international organization should be created to assure the freedom of religion rights and the freedom of belief, the immunity of religious personnel and properties around the world in peacetime and in times of armed conflict. Within this organization, a judicial body should be specialized to examine cases involving violation of religious rights in peacetimes or in times of armed conflict. Experts within this organization will be capable to investigate and settle religious differences in peacetime, to assist the ICRC in times of armed conflicts, and harmonize their effort in favor of the needy and victims. Despite the pressure took place in the recent years against religious rights and freedom of belief, in Sudan, former Yugoslavia, Great Britain, Egypt, United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, there exist a healthy environment for the harmonization between religions. During the meetings in the General Assembly in NY, in September 2005, leaders were raising respect of religious rights and freedom of belief. Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president, in September 15, 2005, declared that “It must not be allowed to engender a clash of civilizations- a clash between Islam and the West." Similarly, the Saudi Government, practicing pressure on Saudi Shiites and accused of neglecting "freedom of religion", declared that Shiites are citizens have all the rights of other Saudis. The establishment, in JFK Airport in New York, of three worship places next to each other, mosque, church and synagogue, promising of a positive future in the relationship between believers and non-believers.

Table of Authorities:

Books:

* ABUL ALA MAWDUDI, THE PUNISHMENT OF THE APOSTATE ACCORDING TO ISLAMIC LAW (Syed Silas Husain & Ernest Hahn trans., 1994).
* ABU YUSUF YAKUB, THE BOOK OF LAND TAX, quoted in Letters of Hadrat Abu Bakr Siddiq, translated by Hafiz Muhammad Adil, International Islamic Publishers, Karachi, 1984
* AMEUR ZEMMALI, COMBATTANTS ET PRISONNIERS DE GUERRE EN DROIT ISLAMIQUE ET EN DROIT INTERNATIONAL HUMANITAIRE, Pedone, Paris, 1997.
* HENRY DUNANT, A MEMORY OF SOLFERINO, International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva, 1986.
* JAMES BROWN SCOTT, THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCES OF 1899 AND 1907, Vol. 1, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1909.
* JEAN-LUC HIEBEL, ASSISTANCE SPIRITUELLE ET CONFLITS ARMES, Henry Dunant Institute, Geneva, 1980.
* DR. MOHAMMED ALWAN, HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER THE FOCUS OF NATIONAL LEGISLATIONS AND THE INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS (in Arabic), Kuwait Law School Ed., Kuwait, 1989.
* PIERRE DUCREY, LE TRAITEMENT DES PRISONNIERS DE GUERRE DANS LA GRECE ANTIQUE, DES ORIGINES A LA CONQUETE ROMAINE, Éditions E. de Boccard, Paris, 1968.
* ROY GUTMAN, UNHOLY WAR; SERBS TARGET CULTURE, HERITAGE OF BOSNIA'S MUSLIMS, NEWSDAY (Nassau and Suffolk Edition), Sept. 2, 1992.

Law Review

* Committee of the Red Cross, “La Rétention et la relève du personnel sanitaire et religieux, accords-types et commentaires”, Int’l Rev. Red Cross, Vol. 37, 1955.
* Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, No other Gods Before Me: Spheres of Influence in the Relationship Between Christianity and Islam, 33 DENV. J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 223 (2005).
* Henry Coursier, “Étude sur la formation du droit humanitaire”, Int’l Rev. Red Cross, No. 389, May 1951; No. 391, July 1951; No. 396, December 1951 (in French only).
* Monica Wallenfels, A Current Case: The Destruction of the Last Mosques in Banja Luka on 8 September 1993, 4 Humanitäres Völkerrecht 217 (1993).
* Peter G. Danchin, U.S. Unilateralism and the International Protection of Religious Freedom: The Multilateral Alternative, 41 Colum. J. Transnat.'l L. 33 (2002).
* Stefan Lunze, Serving God and Caesar: Religious Personnel and Their Protection in Armed Conflict, Vol. 86 No 853 Int’l Rev. Red Cross 69 ( March 2004).
* Sylvain Froifevaux, L’Humanitaire, Le Religieux Et La Mort, Vol. 84 No 848 Int’l Rev. Red Cross 785 (December 2002).
* Tayyab Mahmud, Freedom of Religion And Religious Minorities In Pakistan: A Study Of Judicial Practice, 19 Ford. Int'l L. J. 40 (1995).
* T. Jeremy Gunn, The Complexity of Religion and the Definition of “Religion” in International Law, 16 HARVARD HUMAN RIGHTS JOURNAL 183 (2003).
* Wayne A. Logan, Criminal Law Sanctuaries, 38 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 321 (2003).

Newspapers

* The Christian Post, Refugee Conditions in Darfur Worsening, CWS Urges for More Action, Oct. 7, 2008, available at , last visited (Oct. 10, 2005).
* Timothy L. O'Brien & Heather Timmons, Muslim Charity Is Tied to Terror Group, N.Y. TIMES, May 30, 2003.

Electronical Resources

* ADL. Anti-Defamation League, Explosion of Global Anti-Semitism, available at , (last visited Jul. 25, 2005).
* CNN.com: - An Australian Muslim leader is heading for Iraq in a bid to help secure the freedom of an Australian hostage, as a deadline set by his captors draws near, May 5, 2005.
-Muslims Denounce Congressman Statement, Jul. 20, 2005, (last visited Jul. 24, 2005).
* Columbia Newsblaster, German Question Man In Tunisian’s Synagogue Explosion, available at , (last visited Jul. 26, 2005).
* Frank E. Smitha, Saddam Hussein and the War of 1991, The Pope Jean Paul II called the former American President George B. Bush on Jan. 16 1991, one day after the expiration of the UN deadline, asked him to postpone his offense, available at , last visited (Jul, 27, 2005).
* International Institute for Counter-Terrorism, Serial Church Blasts In India - The Real Culprits, Jul. 23, 2000, available at , (last visited Jul. 28, 2005).
* MASSACRING CHRISTENS OF IRAQ, available at , (last visited Sept. 4, 2005).
* Pervez Musharraf, Pakistani President Speech before the GA of the UN, Sept. 15, 2005, available at (last visit Sept. 20, 2005).
* Thomas Warrick, Carnegie Foundation Symposium, (May 2, 1994), .
* Turks.US Daily News, Iraqi Sunnis Blame Shiite Militia for Assassinations, Thursday, May 19 2005, available at , (last visited Nov. 10, 2005).
* Washington Times, Iraq: Shiites don't blame Sunnis for attacks, February 21, 2005, available at , (last visited Nov. 9, 2005).

Forums and Conferences

* Karl J. Partsch, Freedom of Conscience and Expression, and Political Freedom, in The International Bill of Rights: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Louis Henkin ed., 1981).
* Mark Juergensmeyer, The Power of Religion: in The Terrorists Who Long For Peace, Fletcher Forum of World Affairs (Winter/Spring, 1996).

International Instruments

* Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to the Hague Convention (II) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 29 July 1899, Article 56.
* Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 18 October 1907, Article 27. * Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, of 1948.
* American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, O.A.S. Res. XXX, adopted by the Ninth International Conference of American States (1948), reprinted in Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System, OEA/Ser.L.V/II.82 doc.6 rev.1 at 17 (1992).
* European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Apr. 11, 1950), 213 U.N.T.S. 222.
* Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (July 28, 1951), 19 U.S.T. 6259, 189 U.N.T.S. 137.
* Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 213 U.N.T.S. 262, entered into force May 18, 1954.
* International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), U.N., GAOR, 21st Sess., Supp. No. 16, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966).
* International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess., Supp. No. 16, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966).
* American Convention on Human Rights (Nov. 22, 1969), 1144 U.N.T.S. 123.
* Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
* African Charter of Human Rights and People’s Rights (June 27, 1981), O.A.U. Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3/Rev.5 (1986), reprinted in 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982).
* Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, G.A. Res. 36/55, U.N. GAOR, 36th Sess., Supp. No. 51, U.N. Doc. A/36/684 (1981).
* The Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, reprinted in 7 Hum. Rts. Q. 3, (1985).
* American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, O.A.S. Res. XXX, adopted by the Ninth International Conference of American States (1948), reprinted in Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System, OEA/Ser.L.V/II.82 doc.6 rev.1 (1992).
* Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, Aug. 5, 1990, U.N. GAOR, World Conf. on Hum. Rts., 4th Sess., Agenda Item 5, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 157/PC/62/Add.18 (1993).
* U. N. Security Council Res. 780/1992, of Oct. 6, 1992.
* U. N. Document S/25274 of Feb. 9, 1993.
* U. N. Security Council Res. 808/1993, Feb. 22, 1993.
* Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, U. N. S. C. Res. 827(1993), May 25, 1993.
* Arab Charter on Human Rights, September 15, 1994, adopted by the Council of the League of Arab States, reprinted in 18 Hum. Rts. L.J. 151 (1997).
* The Institute for the Protection of the Cultural-Historical and Natural Heritage of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, EUR. PARL. DOC. (ADOC 6999) (1994); Report on a Fact-Finding Mission on the Situation of the Cultural Heritage in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia, 30 May - 22 June, 1994, Eur. Parl. Ass. Rep. Doc. AS/Cult/AA (June 27, 1994).
* San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.
* ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT U.N. Doc. 2187 U.N.T.S. 90, entered into force July 1, 2002.
* Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000 O.J. (C 364) 1 (Dec. 7, 2000).
* Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, First session, New York, 3-10 September 2002, Official Records, UN Doc. ICC-ASP/1/3, Part. II B.
* U. N. Doc. S/2005/60, Letter dated 31 January 2005 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council.
* U. N. Security Council Res. S/RES/1593, March 31, 2005.

National Documents
Afghanistan

* Afghani Constitution, January. 4, 2004.

Kuwait

* Kuwaiti Constitution, November, 11, 1962.

Saudi Arabia

* Saudi Constitution, March 1992.

United States

* Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (Lieber Code). 24 April 1863.
* International Religion Freedom Act, Pub. L. No. 105-292, 112 Stat. 2787(1998) codified as amended in scattered sections of 22 U.S.C.).
* 2001 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, (U.S. Dep't of State 2001) at Executive Summary.
* Dep't of State, Annual Report on International Religious Freedom 2001 (2001).
* Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, Military Order of 13 November 2001, 66 U.S. Federal Register 57.833.
* DEP'T OF THE TREASURY, CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY TO THE FINANCIAL WAR ON TERRORISM, FACT SHEET, 12 (2002), available at http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/2002910184556291211.pdf (last visited Mar. 8, 2004).
* Bruce Zagaris; U.S. Senate Finance Hearing Reveals New Initiatives on Counter-Terrorism Financial Enforcement, Counter-Terrorism Financial Enforcement, 18 INT'L ENFORCEMENT L. REP. 497 (2002).

Law Cases

* Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co. (Belg. Spain), 1970 I.C.J. 4 (Feb. 5). * Kokkinakis v. Greece, 260 Eur. Ct. H. R., (1993).
* The ICTY, Case No. IT-94-1-I, The Prosecutor of the Tribunal against Dusko Tadic a/k/a “Duke” a/k/a “Dusan” Goran Borovnica, Indictment (Amended), Dec. 15, 1995.
* International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, The Prosecutor against Hassan Ngeze, Amended Indictment, Nov. 10, 1999.
* Case No. ICTR-98-44A-I, The Prosecutor Against Juvenal Kajelijeli, Amended Indictment Pursuant to the Tribunal Order Dated 25 January 2001. Case No. ICTR-98-44A-I, The Prosecutor Against Juvenal Kajelijeli, Amended Indictment Pursuant to the Tribunal Order Dated 25 January 2001.
* The ICTY, Case No. IT-95-4-I, The Prosecutor of the Tribunal against Zeljko Meakic Momcilo Gruban a/k/a “Ckalja” Dusco Knezevic a/k/a “Dica”, Amended Indictment, Jul. 18, 2001.
* The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Case No. IT-95-9, The Prosecutor of the Tribunal Against Blagije Simic Miroslav Tadic Simo Zaric, 30 May 2002.
* RUKUNDO Emmanuel (ICTR-2001-70-I), THE PROSECUTOR v. EMMANUEL RUKUNDO, CASE NO. ICTR-2001-70-I, March 27, 2003.
* ICTY, CASE NO. IT-94-2-PT, The Prosecutor of the Tribunal against Dragan Nikolic, Third Amended Indictment, Oct. 31, 2003.

Others

* Black's Law Dictionary, Brayan A. Garner Ed., 7th Ed. (West Group, 1999).
* Keesing's Record of World Events, February and March 2001.