1 WHO, World Report on Disability, 14 December 2011, p. 27, available at: www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/sensory-functions-disability-and-rehabilitation/world-report-on-disability (all internet references were accessed in October 2022).

2 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UN Doc. A/RES/61/106, 24 January 2007 (entered into force 3 May 2008) (CRPD). On the paradigm shift, see Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN Human Rights), “Statement by Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights”, 5 December 2006, available at: www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/disability/docs/statementhcdec06.doc.

3 UNSC Res. 2475, 20 June 2019, p. 1; CRPD Committee, “Statement on Disability Inclusion for the World Humanitarian Summit”, September 2015, p. 1, available at: www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/CRPDStatements.aspx.

4 See CRPD Committee, above note 3, p. 2.

5 During the 2011 earthquake and following tsunami in Japan, the death rate for persons with disabilities was double that of the general population: see UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), Panel Discussion on Disaster Resilience and Disability: Ensuring Equality and Inclusion: Report, 10 October 2013, p. 10, available at: www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/resources/panel-discussion-on-disaster-resilience-and-disability-ensuring-equality-and-inclusion-10-october-2013.html. See also Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women, UN Doc. A/CONF.177/20/Add.1, 17 October 1995 (Beijing Declaration), para. 131; Alice Priddy, Disability and Armed Conflict, Academy Briefing No. 14, Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, April 2019, pp. 12–13.

6 CRPD Committee, “Persons with Disabilities ‘Forgotten Victims’ of Syria's Conflict – UN Committee”, 17 September 2013, available at: https://newsarchive.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13736&LangID=E.

7 A. Priddy, above note 5, p. 14.

8 CRPD Committee, above note 3, p. 2; Human Rights in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories: Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, UN Doc. A/HRC/12/48, 25 September 2009, paras 1286–1288; Peter Beaumont, “Disabled Palestinians Unable to Escape Israeli Air Strike”, The Guardian, 12 July 2014, available at: www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/12/disabled-palestinians-unable-escape-israeli-air-strike. See also A. Priddy, above note 5, p. 12.

9 Philip Alston, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, UN Doc. A/HRC/14/24/Add.2, 31 May 2010, para. 74. See also CRPD Committee, Observaciones Finales Sobre el Informe Inicial de Colombia, UN Doc. CRPD/C/COL/CO/1, 30 September 2016, para. 24: the Committee found that in at least ten cases, persons with disabilities had been targeted and killed in extrajudicial executions (“ejecutadas extrajudicialmente”) in what it found to be so-called “false positive killings”, with the victim's bodies later falsely presented as those of “guerrilleros” (FARC-EP fighters).

10 See Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The 2014 Gaza Conflict 7 July–26 August 2014: Factual and Legal Aspects, May 2015, para. 205 fn. 359, available at: https://mfa.gov.il/protectiveedge/documents/2014gazaconflictfullreport.pdf.

11 Ibid., para. 205.

12 Ibid. See also A. Priddy, above note 5, p. 12; International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Advisory Service, “IHL and Persons with Disabilities”, legal fact sheet, 4 October 2017, p. 1, available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/ihl-and-persons-disabilities.

13 CRPD Committee, above note 6.

14 UNSC Res. 1325, 31 October 2000, p. 1.

15 Beijing Declaration, above note 5, para. 131; CRC Committee, General Comment No. 9, “The Rights of Children with Disabilities”, UN Doc. CRC/C/GC/9, 27 February 2007, para. 8. While General Comment No. 9 does not expressly mention armed conflict, it does refer to “indigenous girls with disabilities” and “children with disabilities living in rural areas”. Girls with disabilities living in areas affected by armed conflict will often be in an equally if not more vulnerable position based on the interplay between their age, gender and impairment and the dangerous environment they are living in.

16 CRPD Committee, above note 3, pp. 3 ff.; ICRC Advisory Service, above note 12, p. 1; Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women on Her Mission to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, UN Doc. A/HRC/35/30/Add.2, 8 June 2017, para. 43. See also Wood, Elisabeth Jean, “Conflict-Related Sexual Violence and the Policy Implications of Recent Research”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 96, No. 894, 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar, in particular pp. 427 ff.; Beijing Declaration, above note 5, paras 131, 135, 114–116 (stating that “grave violations of the human rights of women”, occurring particularly in times of armed conflict, include murder, torture, systematic rape, forced pregnancy and forced abortion, and that “female children and women with disabilities” are particularly at risk); UNICEF, Children with Disabilities in Armed Conflict: Discussion Paper, November 2018, pp. 8 ff., available at: www.unicef.org/media/126116/file/Children-with-Disabilities-in-Situations-of-Armed-Conflict-Discussion-Paper.pdf; Conflict-Related Sexual Violence: Report of the Secretary General, UN Doc. S/2019/280, 29 March 2019, paras 11 ff., especially paras 17, 18.

17 See, for example, Fergal Keane, “Chaos, Upheaval and Exhaustion for Ukraine's Disabled Children”, BBC News, 8 March 2022; Ivana Kottasová and Yulia Kesaieva, “Escaping the Horror in Ukraine is Not an Option for Many Disabled Children and Their Families”, CNN, 12 March 2022.

18 See, for example, CRPD Committee, “Chapter on the Situation of Persons with Disabilities in Ukraine and in Countries Where They Have Fled after 24 February 2022, as a Result of the Aggression against Ukraine by the Russian Federation – to Be Included in 27th Session Report”, paras 16(a), 27, available at: www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/crpd/statements/2022-09-09/Situation-of-persons-with-disabilitie-in-Ukraine-in-CRPD-27th-session-Report.docx; UNICEF, “Ukraine War Response: Children with Disabilities”, 10 June 2022, available at: www.unicef.org/emergencies/ukraine-war-response-children-disabilities; UN Human Rights, “Ukraine: UN Experts Sound Alarm on Situation of Children with Disabilities”, press release, 11 August 2022, available at: www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/08/ukraine-un-experts-sound-alarm-situation-children-disabilities.

19 Article 1(2) of the CRPD describes persons with disabilities as “those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others” (emphasis added). See also CRPD, above note 2, preambular para. (e), Art. 1; Emily Kakoullis and Yoshikazu Ikehara “Art. 1: Purpose”, in Ilias Bantekas, Michael Ashley Stein and Dimitris Anastasiou (eds), The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2018, p. 54.

20 Kayess, Rosemary and French, Philip, “Out of Darkness into Light? Introducing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities”, Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2008, p. 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Theresia Degener, “A New Human Rights Model in Disability”, in Valentina Della Fina, Rachele Cera and Giuseppe Palmisano (eds), The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A Commentary, Springer, Cham, 2017, p. 20.

22 Roxanne Mykitiuk and Ena Chadha, “Art. 6: Women with Disabilities”, in I. Bantekas, M. A. Stein and D. Anastasiou (eds), above note 19, p. 184; CRPD Committee, General Comment No. 3, “Article 6: Women and Girls with Disabilities”, UN Doc. CRPD/C/GC/3, 2 September 2016, para. 2. See also Ad Hoc Committee on the CRPD, Daily Summary of Discussions at the Sixth Session, 2 August 2005, available at: www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6sum2aug.htm; WHO, above note 1, p. 8.

23 CRPD Committee, General Comment No. 3, above note 22, para. 4. See also CEDAW Committee, “General Recommendation No. 28 on the Core Obligations of States Parties under Article 2 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women”, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/2010/47/GC.2, 19 October 2010, para. 18; CEDAW Committee, “General Recommendation No. 35 on Gender-Based Violence against Women, Updating General Recommendation No. 19”, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/GC/35, 14 July 2017, para. 12. These committees expressly mention gender, age and disability as grounds for multiple, intersectional discrimination.

24 Swantje Köbsell, “Gendering Disability: Behinderung, Geschlecht und Körper”, in Jutta Jacob, Swantje Köbsell and Eske Wollrad (eds), Gendering Disability: Intersektionale Aspekte von Behinderung und Geschlecht, Transcript, Bielefeld, 2010, p. 21.

25 Beijing Declaration, above note 5, paras 32, 270, 278; CRC Committee, above note 15, paras 8, 10. The CRC Committee expressly states that “girls with disabilities are often more vulnerable to discrimination due to gender discrimination” and requires States Parties to take “the necessary measures, and when needed extra measures, in order to ensure that they are well protected, have access to all services and are fully included in society” (CRC Committee, above note 15, para. 10).

26 CRPD Committee, General Comment No. 3, above note 22, para. 3. See also “Chapter I: Matters Brought to the Attention of State Parties: General Recommendations: General Recommendation No. 18: Disabled Women”, in Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, UN GAOR 46th Session, UN Supp No. 38, Doc. A/46/38, 1992; Beijing Declaration, above note 5, paras 60, 81, 82, 106, 109, 114–116, 124, 126, 175, 178, 206, 232, 233; “Chapter I.A.: General Recommendation 24: Article 12 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women: Women and Health”, in Report of the Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, UN GAOR 21st Session, Supp No. 38, UN Doc. A/54/38/Rev.1, 1999, paras 6, 24, 25.

27 CRPD, above note 2, preambular paras (p), (q). See also Rachele Cera, “Preamble”, in V. Della Fina, R. Cera and G. Palmisano (eds), above note 21, p. 85; Beijing Declaration, above note 5, para. 32.

28 CRPD, above note 2, preambular para. (s).

29 Ibid., Arts 8(b), 16(2), 16(5), 18(2), 23(1)(c), 23(3–5), 24, 25(a).

30 Ibid., preambular paras (d), (r).

31 R. Mykitiuk and E. Chadha, above note 22, p. 171.

32 CRPD, above note 2, preambular para. (r).

33 A. Priddy, above note 5, p. 52.

34 See, for example, Rule 138 of the ICRC Customary Law Study, which speaks of the “disabled”; Article 17 of Geneva Convention IV, referring to “the infirm”; and Article 30 of Geneva Convention III, referring to “cases of … mental disease” and “the blind”. Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck (eds), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1: Rules, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005 (ICRC Customary Law Study), Rule 138, available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1; Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (GC IV), Art. 17; Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (GC III), Art. 30.

35 See, for example, ICRC Advisory Service, above note 12, p. 2, which dedicates an entire section to the protection of the “wounded and sick”; or ICRC, “Disability”, How Does Law Protect in War?, available at: https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/disability, where a large part of the IHL provisions that are listed in relation to persons with disabilities are those referring to the “wounded”, “sick” and “infirm”. See also A. Priddy, above note 5, p. 56.

36 ICRC, Commentary on the Second Geneva Convention: Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 2nd ed., Geneva, 2017, paras 1380–1382, available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/full/GCII-commentary. Even though the ICRC adopts a broad interpretation of the terms “wounded” and “sick”, which goes beyond the ordinary (medical) meaning of these terms, it is made clear throughout the interpretation of these terms that being in need of medical care is the decisive criterion to qualify for the corresponding protections. By far not all persons with disabilities are in need of medical care however, meaning that in practice this approach would not only reflect outdated views on disability but would also fail to include many persons with disabilities altogether. See also A. Priddy, above note 5, pp. 56 ff; Hart, Naomi, Crock, Mary, McCallum, Ron and Saul, Ben, “Making Every Life Count: Ensuring Equality and Protection for Persons with Disabilities in Armed Conflicts”, Monash University Law Review, Vol. 40, No. 1, 2014, p. 162Google Scholar.

37 Thematic Study on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities under Article 11 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, on Situations of Risk and Humanitarian Emergencies: Report of the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights, UN Doc. A/HRC/31/30, 30 November 2015, para. 3. See also ICRC, “How Law Protects Persons with Disabilities in Armed Conflict”, 13 December 2017, p. 7, available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/how-law-protects-persons-disabilities-armed-conflict: “Such terminology should not be taken to imply that under contemporary interpretation of IHL persons with disabilities are seen as mere objects of pity or passive victims in need of protection rather than agents of their own destiny.” And see A. Priddy, above note 5, pp. 52–53, pointing out that “language matters” since “it can feed and reinforce negative and discriminatory attitudes”.

38 Giovanni Distefano and Etienne Henry, “Final Provisions, Including the Martens Clause”, in Andrew Clapham, Paola Gaeta and Marco Sassòli (eds), The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015, p. 184.

39 ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 34, pp. 490–491: persons with disabilities are lumped together with the “infirm”, and multiple references are made to their protection as the “wounded” or “sick”. See also Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald Beck (eds), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 2: Practice, Part 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, pp. 3146–3151, which includes similarly outdated references, particularly in citing various military manuals which thoroughly reflect the medical and charity approaches.

40 Nils Melzer, International Humanitarian Law: A Comprehensive Introduction, ICRC, Geneva, 2016, p. 136; ICRC Advisory Service, above note 12, pp. 1–2. In the general context of IHL, the duty to “respect” denotes a duty to refrain from attack, abuse or any other act likely to cause danger or injury, while the duty to “protect”, on the other hand, implies a positive obligation to shield the person in question from harm and to proactively safeguard their rights in the form of help and support.

41 A. Priddy, above note 5, pp. 34–35.

42 ICRC Advisory Service, above note 12, p. 1; CRPD Committee, above note 3, p. 1. See also Article 38 of the CRC, which is the only other international human rights law instrument expressly affirming its applicability in armed conflict. Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989 (entered into force 2 September 1990) (CRC), Art. 38.

43 See A. Priddy, above note 5, pp. 34 ff., 44 ff., 76, for a detailed analysis of the direct applicability of the CRPD to situations of armed conflict, alongside IHL. Factors that may determine its applicability include, but are not limited to, the extent to which a State party to the conflict exercises effective control over the territory in question, and for how long it has exercised such control.

44 In other words, they will apply to both international armed conflicts and non-international armed conflicts, while also being binding for both States and armed non-State actors (i.e. armed groups).

45 See also ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 34, Rule 87; GC III, Art. 13; GC IV, Art. 27; Protocol Additional (I) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 3, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978) (AP I), Art. 75; Protocol Additional (II) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 609, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978) (AP II), Art. 4.

46 Emphasis added. While the wording of other, similar provisions is slightly different, they share the same two essential elements of “treated humanely” and “in all circumstances” or “at all times”.

47 See ICRC, Commentary on the Third Geneva Convention: Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 2nd ed., Geneva, 2020 (ICRC Commentary on GC III), paras 595–600, available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/full/GCIII-commentary.

48 Jean Pictet (ed), Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Vol. 1: Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, ICRC, Geneva, 1960 (1960 Commentary on GC I), p. 53; ICRC, Commentary on the First Geneva Convention: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 2nd ed., Geneva, 2016 (2016 Commentary on GC I), para. 553, available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/full/GCI-commentary; ICRC Commentary on GC III, above note 47, para. 587; A. Priddy, above note 5, p. 54.

49 By way of example, the principle of humane treatment may in fact imply having to refrain from medical intervention if the person in question does not consent to it, even if such an intervention would generally be considered appropriate and would objectively have a chance of improving their physical or mental condition.

50 See ICRC Commentary on GC III, above note 47, para. 587.

51 A. Priddy, above note 5, p. 54; ICRC Advisory Service, above note 12, p. 2.

52 See for example Human Rights Committee (HRC), Hamilton v. Jamaica, Communication No. 616/1995, UN Doc. CCPR/C/66/D/616/1995, 6 January 1995, paras 3.1, 8.2: the Committee held that the conditions of detention of a prisoner who was paralyzed from the waist down had violated his “right to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person” and specifically referred to the difficulties he encountered as a disabled person. These difficulties included having to pay other inmates to empty his slop bucket, and having to be carried by them in order to leave his cell. See also European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Price v. United Kingdom, Case No. 33394/96, Judgment (Third Section), 10 July 2001, in particular paras 28, 30: the Court found that the conditions of detention amounted to degrading treatment in the case of a woman with a severe mobility impairment, as she was “unable to go to the toilet or keep clean without the greatest of difficulty”; she was subjected to “extremely humiliating treatment”, with male officers having to assist in lifting her on and off the toilet; and the temperatures in her cell were “dangerously cold”. See also N. Hart et al., above note 36, p. 165; A. Priddy, above note 5, p. 54.

53 See also ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 34, Rules 87–105.

54 Common Arts 3(1)(a), 3(1)(c). See also AP I, Arts 75(2)(a)(ii), 75(2)(b); AP II, Arts 4(2)(a), 4(2)(e); ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 34, Rule 90.

55 See International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalić et al., Case No. IT-96-21-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 16 November 1998, para. 551; ICTY, Prosecutor v. Ramush Haradinaj et al., Case No. IT-04-84-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber I), 3 April 2008, paras 126 (“treatment which … constitutes a serious attack upon human dignity”), 132 (act or omission “which would be generally considered to … be a serious attack on human dignity”). See also ICTY, Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalić et al., Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac et al., Case Nos IT-96-23-T, IT-96-23/1-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 22 February 2001, para. 514.

56 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Fatmir Limaj et al., Case No. IT-03-66-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber II), 30 November 2005, para. 232. See also ICTY, Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 31 March 2003, para. 369; Committee against Torture, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention: United States of America, UN Doc. CAT/C/USA/CO/2, 25 July 2006, para. 13. As stated in the ICRC Commentary on GC III, above note 47, para. 658, the suffering caused may be of either a physical or mental nature, so long as it reaches a certain threshold.

57 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 15 March 2002, para. 131; ICTY, Prosecutor v. Zlatko Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 25 June 1999, para. 56; ICTY, Kunarac, above note 55, para. 504.

58 See ICTY, Delalić, above note 55, para. 551; ICTY, Haradinaj, above note 55, para. 126.

59 See ICTY, Kunarac, above note 55, para. 514.

60 See, in particular, CRPD Article 15, stipulating the protection of persons with disabilities against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on an equal basis with others; Article 16, explicitly prohibiting all forms of violence, abuse and exploitation of persons with disabilities; and Article 17, aimed at the protection of their physical and mental integrity.

61 See Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, UN Doc. A/63/175, 28 July 2008, para. 44.

62 Ibid., para. 47; see also ECtHR, Nasri v. France, Case No. 19465/92, Judgment (Court Chamber), 13 July 1995, paras 47, 48.

63 See ICRC Commentary on GC III, above note 47, paras 3754, 3756. It should be noted that due to the detrimental effects on a person's mental and physical health, acceptance of solitary confinement as a permissible form of punishment has significantly decreased in recent years, both in theory and practice. See further below for further considerations regarding solitary confinement of PoWs with disabilities.

64 GC III, Art. 89(3).

65 ICRC Commentary on GC III, above note 47, para. 3761.

66 See further below regarding solitary confinement of women and girls with disabilities in particular.

67 ICTY, Krnojelac, above note 57, para. 131; 1960 Commentary on GC I, above note 48, p. 53; 2016 Commentary on GC I, above note 48, para. 553; ICRC Commentary on GC III, above note 47, para. 587; A. Priddy, above note 5, p. 54.

68 CRPD, above note 2, preambular paras (d), (r).

69 See, in particular, CRC, above note 42, Arts 23, 37. See also CRC Committee, above note 15, paras 5, 7: the CRC Committee has adopted an approach that reflects the social model and human rights-based approach enshrined in the CRPD.

70 To reiterate what has been stated above, “female” and “male” in this context should be understood as referring to a PoW's own gender identity. Where this identity does not fall into a binary definition, in the author's view the deciding factor should be which facilities the person in question feels more comfortable using.

71 See further below regarding solitary confinement of women and girls with disabilities in particular.

72 See also A. Priddy, above note 5, pp. 29, 32: this concept, also referred to as substantive equality, recognizes that differential treatment may in fact be necessary in order to redress existing inequalities. The counterpart to substantive equality, on the other hand, known as formal equality, requires that everyone be treated the same, regardless of individual circumstances. In practice, formal equality will often result in discrimination, as it fails to take into account the existing inequalities resulting from individual circumstances such as impairment. For persons with disabilities, formal equality can be particularly dangerous because it allows deliberate discrimination to masquerade as indifference.

73 See A. Priddy, above note 5, p. 74.

74 ICRC Commentary on GC III, above note 47, para. 604.

75 See also GC III, Art. 16; GC IV, Art. 27(3); AP I, Art. 75(1); AP II, Art. 4(1); ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 34, Rule 88. Each of these provisions uses slightly different phrasing, but they all stipulate the same principle.

76 Jean Pictet (ed), Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Vol. 4: Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, ICRC, Geneva, 1960 (ICRC Commentary on GC IV), p. 206.

77 See J. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck (eds), above note 39, p. 309.

78 Ibid.

79 CRPD Committee, “General Comment No. 6 (2018) on Equality and Non-Discrimination”, UN Doc. CRPD/C/GC/6, 26 April 2018, paras 4, 5.

80 Markus Schefer and Caroline Hess-Klein, Behindertengleichstellungsrecht, Stämpfli, Bern, 2014, p. 8.

81 See, for example, CRPD, above note 2, Preamble, Arts 3(b), 4(1), 6(1), 23(1), 24(1), 25, 27, 28, 29.

82 Common Article 3 expressly lists race, colour, religion, faith, sex, birth and wealth.

83 ICRC Commentary on GC IV, above note 76, p. 206.

84 Ibid.; ICRC Commentary on GC III, above note 47, para. 605.

85 A. Priddy, above note 5, p. 55; Palomino, Priscilla Denisse Coria, “A New Understanding of Disability in International Humanitarian Law: Reinterpretation of Article 30 of Geneva Convention III”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 104, No. 919, 2022, p. 1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also CRPD Committee, above note 79, para. 43: the Committee has indeed confirmed States Parties’ obligations to ensure non-discrimination in situations of armed conflict. Crucially, it also did so in direct reference to their IHL obligations (“… based also on obligations in international humanitarian law” (emphasis added)).

86 A. Priddy, above note 5, p. 55.

87 ICRC Commentary on GC III, above note 47, para. 603; see also para. 605.

88 See, for example, ICRC Commentary on GC IV, above note 76, p. 206; A. Priddy, above note 5, p. 55.

89 ICRC Commentary on GC III, above note 47, para. 609.

90 CRPD, above note 2, Arts 5(2), 5(3).

91 Ibid., Art. 2(4).

92 Ibid., Arts 2(3), 5(3).

93 ECtHR, Thlimmenos v. Greece, Case No. 34369/97, Judgment (Grand Chamber), 6 April 2000, para. 44: the ECtHR noted that the right not to be discriminated against is also violated “when States without an objective and reasonable justification fail to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different” (emphasis added). See also Report of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights: Equality and Non-Discrimination under Article 5 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UN Doc. A/HRC/34/26, 9 December 2016, para. 28; R. Kayess and P. French, above note 20, p. 27; A. Priddy, above note 5, p. 31.

94 A. Priddy, above note 5, p. 33.

95 CRPD Committee, General Comment No. 2, “Article 9: Accessibility”, UN Doc. CRPD/C/GC/2, 22 May 2014, para. 13.

96 See, for example, HRC, Hamilton, above note 52, paras 3.1, 8.2; A. Priddy, above note 5, p. 74.

97 A. Priddy, above note 5, p. 34.

98 CRPD Committee, above note 95, para. 13.

99 ICRC Commentary on GC III, above note 47, para. 2504.

100 See also CRPD, above note 2, Art. 21; CRC, above note 42, Art. 13.

101 ICRC Commentary on GC III, above note 47, para. 2259; WHO, above note 1, p. 74.

102 CRPD Committee, above note 79, para. 16.

103 Ibid.

104 CRC Committee, above note 15, para. 8.

105 CRPD, above note 2, Art. 23(2).

106 Ibid., Art. 23(3).

107 CRC Committee, above note 15, paras 8, 10.

108 A. Priddy, above note 5, p. 55.

109 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgment (Chamber I), 2 September 1998, para. 688.

110 See, for example, GC IV, Art. 27(2); AP I, Arts 75(2)(b), 76(1); AP II, Art. 4(2)(e): some of these norms explicitly list other forms of sexual violence such as enforced prostitution and “any other forms of indecent assault”.

111 ICTR, Prosecutor v. Tharcisse Muvunyi, Case No. ICTR-2000-55A-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber II), 12 September 2006, para. 528; ICTR, Prosecutor v. Théoneste Bagosora et al., Case No. ICTR-98-41-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber I), 18 December 2008, para. 2254; Special Court for Sierra Leone, Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor, Case No. SCSL-03-01-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber II), 18 May 2012, para. 432; ICTY, Delalić, above note 55, para. 495; Report by the Special Rapporteur on Torture, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/15, 19 February 1986, para. 119; CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No. 35, above note 23, para. 16.

112 According to critics, the characterization of sexual violence as a particularly heinous act within IHL seems to be based more on a violation of the “honour” of women as opposed to the severe physical and psychological damage it causes. See, for example, Oosterveld, Valerie, “Feminist Debates on Civilian Women and International Humanitarian Law”, Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2009, p. 392CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Durham, Helen and O'Byrne, Katie, “The Dialogue of Gender Difference: Gender Perspectives on International Humanitarian Law”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 92, No. 877, 2010, pp. 47–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Charlotte Lindsey, Women Facing War: ICRC Study on the Impact of Armed Conflict on Women, ICRC, Geneva, 2001, p. 29, available at: https://shop.icrc.org/women-facing-war-pdf-en.

113 Thematic Study on the Issue of Violence against Women and Girls and Disability, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/5, 30 March 2012, paras 21–22, 26; CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No. 35, above note 23, para. 14; CRC Committee, General Comment No. 13, “The Right of the Child to Freedom from All Forms of Violence”, UN Doc. CRC/C/GC/13, 18 April 2011, paras 16, 19, 23, 29, 72; Beijing Declaration, above note 5, para. 116. See also C. Lindsey, above note 112, pp. 29–30. The present article avoids referring to women and girls with disabilities as “particularly vulnerable” whenever possible, as the use of such language risks perpetuating negative, untrue stereotypes about women – with or without disabilities – being passive, weak and objects of paternalistic protection, as opposed to being active agents of their own destiny.

114 CRPD, above note 2, Art. 16(1).

115 Ibid., Art. 16(2).

116 Ibid., Art. 16(5).

117 “Chapter I: General Recommendations and Suggestions: General Recommendation No. 19: Violence against Women”, in Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, UN GAOR 47th Session, Supp No. 38, UN Doc. A/47/38, 1993, paras 1, 6, 7, 8, 10.

118 Thematic Study, above note 113, para. 11.

119 CRC Committee, above note 113, paras 19–22, 25, 26, 38–44.

120 Ibid.

121 Beijing Declaration, above note 5, para. 116.

122 ICC, Elements of Crimes, 2011, p. 8, in particular fn. 16.

123 See, for example, Constitutional Court of Colombia, Prohibición de Anticoncepción Quirurgica a Menores de Edad en Condición de Discapacidad, Case No. C-131/14, Judgment, 11 March 2014.

124 Regarding forced sterilization, see, for example, Committee against Torture, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention: Peru, UN Doc. CAT/C/PER/CO/4, 25 July 2006, para. 23.

125 CEDAW Committee and CRPD Committee, “Guaranteeing Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights for All Women, in Particular Women with Disabilities”, joint statement, 29 August 2018, p. 1. See also CRPD, above note 2, Art. 25(d).

126 CRC Committee, above note 113, para. 23(a).

127 CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No. 19, “Violence against Women”, 1992, para. 22, available at: www.refworld.org/docid/52d920c54.html.

128 See ICRC Commentary on GC III, above note 47, para. 2257: this will not necessarily be the case, but certain types of impairments may be particularly prevalent among PoWs as a result of their direct participation in hostilities. Such impairments could include physical injuries like missing limbs, sensory disabilities like the full or partial loss of eyesight, or psychosocial impairments stemming from trauma associated with their experiences.

129 ICRC Commentary on GC III, above note 47, para. 1751.

130 Ibid., para. 1684.

131 See also GC III Article 30 and GC IV Article 91 regarding medical attention.

132 With regard to GC III Article 30 and GC IV Article 91, see also A. Priddy, above note 5, pp. 69 ff. It is important to point out that these articles – namely, Article 30(1) of GC III and Article 91(2) of GC IV – also foresee isolation wards for persons with mental impairments. This reflects an outdated medical approach to disability in assuming that persons with psychological or psychosocial impairments can be a danger to themselves or others; furthermore, the isolation of a person based on their impairment would be in violation of various provisions contained within the CRPD (inter alia Article 14), the CRC, and IHL provisions such as the prohibition on adverse distinction. The author therefore shares the view that these respective provisions should be considered to have been superseded by newer international standards, and are thus no longer applicable.

133 ICRC Commentary on GC III, above note 47, para. 1687.

134 Ibid., para. 2213.

135 Ibid., paras 1687, 2215.

136 See CRPD, above note 2, Arts 3(a), 22; ICRC Commentary on GC III, above note 47, para. 1687.

137 CRPD, above note 2, Art. 9. See also CRPD Committee, above note 95, para. 13.

138 See also GC IV, Art. 82.

139 See ICRC Commentary on GC III, above note 47, para. 3733. When assessing the severity of a particular punishment, regard must be paid to considerations such as age, gender and background of the PoW.

140 See above regarding disciplinary punishment in the context of humane treatment.

141 Amnesty International, Entombed: Isolation in the US Federal Prison System, 16 July 2014, p. 31, available at: www.amnestyusa.org/reports/entombed-isolation-in-the-us-federal-prison-system/.

142 European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), 21st General Report of the CPT, 10 November 2011, paras 53 ff.; Grassian, Stuart, “Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement”, Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, Vol. 22, 2006, p. 382Google Scholar.

143 In reaching this conclusion, the Special Rapporteur used the Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement's definition of solitary confinement as the physical isolation of individuals who are confined to their cells for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day.

144 UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Mandela Rules), UN Doc. A/RES/70/175, 8 January 2016, Rule 45.2.

145 See A. Priddy, above note 5, pp. 72–73. See also CRPD Committee, Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of Mongolia, UN Doc. CRPD/C/MNG/CO/1, 13 May 2016, para. 25: the Committee confirmed the application of reasonable accommodation in the context of detention by recommending “the application of reasonable accommodation in prisons in order not to aggravate incarceration conditions for persons with disabilities”.