Handling Detainees and Prisoners of War

People are held under detention or kept in an organization or country’s custody because of a variety of reasons. As such, there are also different ways that these detainees are being handled.

These ways vary depending on the reasons that led to the person being held in detention. However, this is generally dependent on the organization or country holding the jurisdiction for the process. These variations may be due to the existence of a different set of codes used as guidelines for handling detainees.Each country or organization follows a set of rules that is unique to that country or organization alone.

The specific set of codes dictates and governs the entire process of detention of the country or organization involved. It also includes the probable reasons for the administration of the action. Under the Canadian Rules Canada is one of the many countries that considers detainee handling as a very sensitive matter of discussion; it involves a variety of treatment given that detention may include persons or individuals of different nationality, culture, and training.The Canadian code for detainee handling has clearly provided sections from the taking in of detainees, to the handling, and even upon release. Each section dictates the rules which have been proven to be of the highest standard, according to the International Humanitarian Law. This standard set of code may be applied not only to proven and declared war prisoners, but also to all detainees or captured persons (Canadian Forces, 2004).

According to the manuscript, the Canadian Forces may only apply the rules by the onset and during the existence of an armed conflict, either of an international scope or domestic.Detention may only be administered on parties involved in the said armed conflict and excludes other parties, especially those of peacekeeping nature. Furthermore, the manuscript states that as detainees are also considered civilians, handling them may vary according to the reason for detention. As such, detainees are required to undergo categorization. However, this does not point that the existence of categorization may greatly modify the treatment to be received by the detainee (Canadian Forces, 2004). The main rule of the Canadian Force on detention is the Policy for Minimum detention.

According to this policy, the Canadian Force will only detain people or individuals when necessary. It should be authorized and may be justified by reasons such as the person to be detained poses a threat to the success of the mission. It should also be done in order to prevent further conflict with whoever is an existing enemy (Canadian Forces, 2004). Upon capture of a person to be detained, disarming is of great necessity. This follows that only weapons are to be confiscated from detainees, unless otherwise, another belonging proves to be a great threat to the community or country.

It is also a necessity for the detainee to be immediately transferred to the police force in which the detainee is under. Upon transfer, all other confiscated materials shall be handed over as well. In case the detainee needs to be held in more than 24 hours, a lawyer or legal adviser may be consulted by the captive (Canadian Forces, 2004). Another activity involved in the detention process of the Canadian force, is searching. Since the code follows a standard set of rules, it should be kept in mind that detainees are not allowed to be embarrassed or humiliated.

The detaining party shall also provide a searcher who is of the same sex as the detainee to be searched. Doing it otherwise is clearly, a form of harassment and may be charged against the detaining party (Canadian Forces, 2004). In relation to harassment, the code also considers it as a treatment protocol to prohibit any form of sexual contact, and physical contact shall be kept to the minimum, unless called for. Physical abuse is also highly impermissible, as well as the acceptance of gifts or rewards of any form.More importantly, a detainee who is in need of medical attention shall immediately be attended to (Canadian Forces, 2004). In the event that the immediate authority deems it no longer necessary to detain a particular individual, legal advice shall be sought and the release may immediately follow.

Subsequent to this is the reporting of the release as a form of status update as well as recording. The record for any given detention occurrence shall be kept by the authority in which the individual has been detained or handed over to (Canadian Forces, 2004).Under the Royal CrownAs it is with Canada, the United Kingdom (UK) also takes the matter of detention seriously. The UK government also drafted a code which is referred to by people in authority in cases that detention is necessary.

As compared with Canada’s code, the UK’s code regarding detainee handling is also based on a higher standard in order to ensure the non-existence of hostility and brutality to detainees as well as prisoners of war. However, unlike the Canadian code, the UK Forces’ rules in handling detainees are different with the rules when it comes to handling prisoners of war and internees.In accordance with the UK Forces’ code, detainees have a very distinct description, which states that detainees are individuals or persons who have committed or is suspected to have committed criminal offences. They are those people who are taken in custody without the existence of an armed conflict. Upon occurrence of either international or domestic armed conflict, these people shall be considered internees, thus will be handled according to another set of rules (UK Department of Defence, 2006).Furthermore, the code also explains that handling of detainees is affected by the laws that govern the territory in which the UK Forces is operating, the nature of the operation, and the legal framework with which the operations are being based.

Because of this complexity, policy advice as well as specialist staff may be called for (UK Department of Defence, 2006). In the event that a detainee is taken in custody, the rules state that the individual shall be treated as humanely as possible, like in the case of the Canadian code. As the code dictates benevolence, this involves the provision of all necessities.Necessities include food, drinking water, health and hygiene, and shelter. The detainees are also entitled for protection from any kind of dangers or injury that may be obtained from an armed conflict (UK Department of Defence, 2006). Other than the physiological necessities, the UK Forces’ code also entitles detainees to satisfy their spiritual needs.

The code allows detained individuals to practice traditions or rituals that are related to the detained individual’s specific religion. The code also permits chaplains or ministers as long as it is necessary to the detainees’ spirituality (UK Department of Defence, 2006).In cases where detention is prolonged and the detainee is allowed to work, the code states that the said individual may receive benefits of working conditions and safeguards that are the same as that of an ordinary civilian. This, as well as the other provisions is in effect even after the end of the existing conflict (UK Department of Defence, 2006). Another thing that the UK code has in common with Canada’s is its section that expounds on strict rules on sexual harassment.

The code obliges officers or authorities attending to the detainees to extend utmost respect especially with women.The section further states that men and women detainees are to stay in separate quarters except if they are a family or a married couple. Female detainees are automatically assigned under the supervision of a female authority. This remains relative to the principle of humaneness and non-hostility of the code (UK Department of Defence, 2006). During the last event of war in Iraq, there had been allegations that the UK forces as well as the US forces, which is an ally, have broken the said principle of the code for detainee handling. Reports indicated that there have been incidences of abuse on detainees.

Further allegations state much that the violation mostly happened during the interrogation of the detainees. However, the United Kingdom Forces claimed that such occurrence was due to the insufficient training of the authorities involved. As such, detainees of future conflicts shall never undergo the said violations again (UK Intelligence and Security Committee, 2005). Analysis and Conclusion It may be seen from the aforementioned information that both Canada and United Kingdom have established a set of code or rules to be followed in the incident of detention, specifically during armed conflicts.These codes are based on a higher standard set by the Geneva Convention.

It follows the principle of extending the most humane treatment to detainees, as well as prisoners of war. This humane treatment includes provision of all human necessities such as food and drink, shelter, clothing, health and hygiene, and protection. It also includes permission of spiritual or religious practice of any type. Most importantly, it protects detainees from any kind of sexual harassment or abuse of authorities of their handlers.However, even with similar principles, the codes still vary at some point.

As in the Canadian code, the handling rules do not exclude prisoners of war, while the UK code has a separate code for internees and prisoners of war. It has its own definition for the term detainee and as such, a different strategy of handling it. Also, the UK and Canada code have clauses that are specific only for their country. For instance, the Canadian code state that detainees shall be immediately handed to the police force after being caught.Only in the event that further investigation is necessary shall the detention to the higher authority be allowed.

This clause may be considered as non-existent in the code of the United Kingdom. From this, it may then be derived that the handling of detainees varies from one country to the other. There are different factors that led to the variation. First is the existence of a code, which the authorities of the country involved need to adhere to. Second, is the reason behind the detention, and the third involves the situation or the predicament to that allowed the need for detention to arise.