Prosecutor vs.
Tadic  The Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was also in conflict
Facts:
Tadic was charged with 31 individual counts of persecution, murder, beatings and other
offences alleged to have been committed in 1992 in the Prijedor district (northwestern part
of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina) and more specifically at the Omarska, Keraterm
and Trnopolje camps, in Kozarac and in the area of Jaskici and Sivci.
Trial Court Judgment
General requirements of Article 2, 3, and 5 of the Statute
Each of the relevant Articles of the Statute, either by its terms or by virtue of the
customary rules which it imports, proscribes certain acts when committed “within the
context of” an “armed conflict”.
Article 2: directs the Trial Chamber to the grave breaches Geneva Conventions which applies
only to armed conflicts of an international character and to offences committed against
persons or property regarded as "protected", in particular civilians in the hands of a party to
a conflict of which they are not national.
Article 3: directs the Trial Chamber to those sources of customary international humanitarian
law that comprise the “laws or customs of war”. It is a general provision covering, subject to
certain conditions, all violations of international humanitarian law which do not fall under
Article 2 or are not covered by Articles 4 or 5. This includes violations of the rules contained
in Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions (“Common Article 3”), applicable to armed
conflicts in general, with which the accused has been charged under Article 3 of the Statute.
Article 5: directs the Trial Chamber to crimes against humanity proscribed by customary
international humanitarian law. Those crimes must also occur in the context of an armed
conflict, whether international or non-international in character. An armed conflict exists for
the purposes of the application of Article 5 if it is found to exist for the purposes of either
Article 2 or Article 344 . 560. Consequently, it is necessary to show, first, that an armed
conflict existed at all relevant times in the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
and, secondly, that the acts of the accused were committed within the context of that armed
conflict and for the application of Article 2, that the conflict was international in character
and that the offences charged were committed against protected persons.
Issue #1: WoN an armed conflict existed at all relevant times in the territory of the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina? - Yes
 An armed conflict exists whenever there is a resort to armed force between States
or protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organized
armed groups or between such groups within a State.
a. Protracted armed violence between governmental forces and organized armed
groups
 The test focuses on two aspects of a conflict; the intensity of the conflict and the
organization of the parties to the conflict.
 The parties to the conflict in the area of optina Prijedor and the main parties to the
conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole were the Government of the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Bosnian Serb forces, the latter
controlling territory under the banner of the Republika Srpska and, at least before
19 May 1992, supported by or under the command of the JNA.
with various Bosnian Croat forces supported by the Government of Croatia. The
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was admitted as a State member of the United
Nations, following decisions adopted by the Security Council and the General
Assembly on 22 May 1992, two days before the shelling and take-over of Kozarac.
It was the de jure State against which the Bosnian Serb forces were in revolt. Even
before that date, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was an organized political
entity, as one of the republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, having
its own republican secretariat for defence and its own TO.
 The territory controlled by the Bosnian Serb forces was known initially as the
“Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina” and renamed Republika Srpska on 10
January 1992. This entity did not come into being until the Assembly of the Serbian
People of Bosnia and Herzegovina proclaimed the independence of that Republic
on 9 January 1992. In its revolt against the de jure Government of the Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo, it possessed, at least from 19 May 1992, an
organized military force, namely the VRS, comprising forces formerly part of the
JNA and transferred to the Republika Srpska by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro). These forces were officially under the command of the
Bosnian Serb administration located in Pale, headed by the Bosnian Serb President,
Radovan Karad`ic. The Bosnian Serb forces occupied and operated from a
determinate, if not definite, territory, comprising a significant part of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, bounded by the borders of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
on the one hand, and by the front-lines of the conflict between the Bosnian Serb
forces and the forces of the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
and the forces of the Bosnian Croats, on the other. In optina Prijedor, hostilities did
not cease following the withdrawal from the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina of
the JNA on 19 May 1992. As has been seen, areas to the south-west of the town of
Prijedor were attacked by Bosnian Serb armed forces in late May 1992 following
the clash between Serbs and Muslims at the Muslim-manned checkpoint in
Hambarine referred to earlier, in which there were casualties on both sides. Then,
on 24 May 1992, the predominantly Muslim town of Kozarac was attacked by
Bosnian Serb forces, with an artillery bombardment which lasted until 26 May 1992
and extended to surrounding Muslim villages. As a result of this shelling many
dwellings were destroyed, over 800 inhabitants were killed and the remainder,
including those from surrounding Muslim villages, were expelled, the town and its
vicinity being then occupied by Bosnian Serb forces. Similarly, the two villages of
Jaski}i and Sivci and their inhabitants were attacked by armed Bosnian Serbs on 14
June 1992 with like consequences. It is with the attacks upon Kozarac and these
Muslim villages and all that ensued for their inhabitants that the Indictment is
concerned.
 Thee ongoing conflict between the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina and the Bosnian Serb forces in its entirety can be considered. The
temporal and geographical scope of both internal and international armed conflicts
extends beyond the exact time and place of hostilities.
 No general cessation of hostilities had occurred there or elsewhere in the territory
of the former Yugoslavia until the Dayton Peace Agreement was concluded. The
ongoing conflicts before, during and after the time of the attack on Kozarac on 24
May 1992 were taking place and continued to take place throughout the territory
 of Bosnia and Herzegovina between the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the Bosnian Serb forces,
elements of the VJ operating from time to time in the territory of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, and various paramilitary groups, all of which had occupied or were
proceeding to occupy a significant portion of the territory of that State.
 The intensity of the conflict has ensured the continuous involvement of the
Security Council since the outbreak of fighting in the former Yugoslavia. As early as
25 September 1991, considering that the situation in the former Yugoslavia
constituted a threat to international peace and security, the Security Council
invoked Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations to declare a total arms
embargo on the region. After that time, the Security Council took numerous steps
to maintain international peace and security in the region, including the imposition
of economic sanctions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro) for its involvement in the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the
establishment of this International Tribunal.
 At all relevant times, an armed conflict was taking place between the parties to the
conflict in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina of sufficient scope and intensity
for the purposes of the application of the laws or customs of war embodied in
Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, applicable as
it is to armed conflicts in general, including armed conflicts not of an international
character
b. Use of Force Between States
 From the beginning of 1992 until 19 May 1992, a state of international armed
conflict existed in at least part of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This was
an armed conflict between the forces of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina on
the one hand and those of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro), being the JNA (later the VJ), working with sundry paramilitary and
Bosnian Serb forces, on the other.
 The level of intensity of the conflict, including the involvement of the JNA or the VJ
in the conflict, was sufficient to meet the requirements for the existence of an
international armed conflict for the purposes of the Statute.
 The bombardment of Sarajevo, the seat of government of the Republic of Bosnia
and Herzegovina, in April 1992 by Serb forces, their attack on towns along Bosnia
and Herzegovina’s border with Serbia on the Drina River and their invasion of
south-eastern Herzegovina from Serbia and Montenegro. The hostilities extended
to optina Prijedor is also clear and is evidenced by the military occupation and
armed seizure of power in the town of Prijedor itself on 30 April 1992 by JNA
forces, aided by Bosnian Serb members of the police and administration and,
following an unsuccessful revolt, their subsequent expulsion by force of arms of the
majority of the non-Serb inhabitants from, and the bombardment and substantial
destruction of, Stari Grad, the old, predominantly Muslim, section of Prijedor.
These attacks were part of an armed conflict to which international humanitarian
law applied up until the general cessation of hostilities. 571. However, the extent of
the application of international humanitarian law from one place to another in the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina depends upon the particular character of the
conflict with which the Indictment is concerned. This depends in turn on the degree
of involvement of the VJ and the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro) after the withdrawal of the JNA on 19 May 1992.
Nexus Between Act of Accused and Armed Conflict
 For a crime to fall within the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal, a sufficient
nexus must be established between the alleged offence and the armed conflict
which gives rise to the applicability of international humanitarian law.
 The acts of the accused related to the armed conflict in two distinct ways.
o The acts of the accused in the take-over of Kozarac and the villages of
Sivci and Jaski}i. Given the nature of the armed conflict as an ethnic war
and the strategic aims of the Republika Srpska to create a purely Serbian
State, the acts of the accused during the armed take-over and ethnic
cleansing of Muslim and Croat areas of op{tina Prijedor were directly
connected with the armed conflict.
o The acts of the accused in the camps run by the authorities of the
Republika Srpska. Those acts clearly occurred with the connivance or
permission of the authorities running these camps and indicate that such
acts were part of an accepted policy towards prisoners in the camps in
optina Prijedor. Indeed, such treatment effected the objective of the
Republika Srpska to ethnically cleanse, by means of terror, killings or
otherwise, the areas of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
controlled by Bosnian Serb forces.
Issue #2: WoN the victims were “protected persons” – No
 Each of the victims of the crimes alleged to have been committed by the accused
were civilians caught up in the ongoing armed conflict in the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Some of the victims were in towns and villages captured by the VRS,
while others fell victim to the acts of the accused while detained at one of the
camps established in optina Prijedor to facilitate the ethnic cleansing of that area.
As such, their status under the Geneva Conventions is governed by the terms of
Article 4 of Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in
Time of War.
o Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment
and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or
occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power
of which they are not nationals.
 Were the victims of the accused were in the hands of “a Party to the conflict or
Occupying Power of which they are not nationals”?
a. Were the victims in the hands of a party in the conflict? - Yes
 Republika Srpska was a party to the conflict in the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina opposed to the Republic’s secession from the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia. While the victims in the camps at Omarska, Keraterm and
Trnopolje were in the hands of the armed forces and authorities of the Republika
Srpska, the expression “in the hands of” is not restricted to situations in which the
individual civilian is physically in the hands of a Party or Occupying Power.
 Persons who found themselves in territory effectively occupied by a party to the
conflict can be considered to have been in the hands of that party. However, given
that the take-over of optina Prijedor began before the JNA withdrawal on 19 May
1992 and was not completed until after that date, the exact date when the victims
 of the acts of the accused fell into the hands of the opposing armed forces is highly
relevant to an assessment of their status under international humanitarian law.
 Most of the victims of the accused’s acts within the optina Prijedor camps were,
prior to the occurrence of the acts in question, living in the town of Kozarac or its
surrounds or in the villages of Sivci and Jaskii. In some instances, the exact date and
place when some of the victims of the acts of the accused fell into the hands of
forces hostile to the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not
made clear. The exact moment when a person or area falls into the hands of a
party to a conflict dep.ends on whether that party has effective control over an
area
 In the case of optina Prijedor, only parts of the optina, including the main
population centre of Prijedor town, were occupied on or before 19 May 1992. In
relation to the citizens of Kozarac and other Muslim-controlled or dominated areas
of optina Prijedor, they fell into the hands of the VRS upon their capture by those
forces on or after 27 May 1992.
 For those persons in optina Prijedor who were in territory occupied prior to 19 May
1992 by Bosnian Serb forces and JNA units, their status as “protected persons”,
subject to the relationship between the VRS and the Government of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) ceased on that date.
 On 15 May 1992 the Security Council demanded that all interference from outside
Bosnia and Herzegovina by units of the JNA cease immediately and that those units
either be withdrawn, be subject to the authority of the Government of the Republic
of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or be disbanded and disarmed.
 by 19 May 1992 the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro) had lost or given up effective control over op{tina Prijedor and most
other parts of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
 As each of the crimes alleged to have been committed by the accused occurred
after 19 May 1992, the question to which the Trial Chamber now turns, having
clearly determined that the victims were at all relevant times in the hands of a
party to the conflict, is whether, after that date and at all relevant times, those
victims were in the hands of a party to the conflict or occupying power of which
they were not nationals
b. Were the victims in the hands of a party to the conflict of which they were not
nationals? - No
 The armed forces of the Republika Srpska, and the Republika Srpska as a whole,
were, at least from 19 May 1992 onwards, legal entities distinct from the VJ and
the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).
 The acts of persons, groups or organizations may be imputed to a State where they
act as de facto organs or agents of that State.
 Many of the violations in this case were committed in camps run by the local
authorities of the Republika Srpska without any VJ involvement and with relatively
little involvement of those parts of the VRS formerly part of the JNA. However, the
camps into which Muslim and Croat civilians were driven following the VRS’s
offensive operations in optina Prijedor were located in territory occupied by the
VRS. If sufficient control can be shown, it may be said that they were in the hands
of a party to the conflict of which they were not nationals.
 After 19 May 1992, had the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro), by its withdrawal from the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina and notwithstanding its continuing support for the VRS, sufficiently
distanced itself from the VRS so that those forces could not be regarded as de facto
organs or agents of the VJ and hence of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
 It is neither necessary nor sufficient merely to show that the VRS was dependent,
even completely dependent, on the VJ and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro) for the necessities of war. It must also be shown that the
VJ and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) exercised the
potential for control inherent in that relationship of dependency or that the VRS
had otherwise placed itself under the control of the Government of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia.
 Two important events that showed there was an exercise of control:
o The transfer to the 1st Krajina Corps, as with other units of the VRS, of
former JNA officers who were not of Bosnian Serb extraction from their
equivalent postings in the relevant VRS unit’s JNA predecessor.
o The continuing payment of salaries, to Bosnian Serb and non-Bosnian
Serb officers alike, by the Government of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).
 The Court held:
o First, in relation to the attack on Kozarac and the running of the
detention camps specifically, no evidence of the involvement of non-
Bosnian Serb officers has been presented. Even if the attack on Kozarac
and the running of the camps had been carried out under the orders of
such officers within the 1st Krajina Corps, such orders could only be
considered as having originated with, been at the behest of, or been
issued under the authority of, the Corps Commander, Lieutenant-General
Tali. The inferences which should be drawn in relation to either the 1st
Krajina Corps or the VRS as a whole.
o Anent the second, salaries usually denote control. However, in the
circumstances of the time, continuity of command structures, logistical
organization, and strategy and tactics were as much matters of
convenience as of military necessity. As to the financing of the VRS as a
whole, such evidence, without more, as with the direct relationship
established in the Nicaragua case between financing of contra activities
against the Government of Nicaragua by the United States and the nature
and intensity of those activities, establishes nothing more than the
potential for control inherent in the relationship of dependency which
such financing produced.
 Thus, while it can be said that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro), through the dependence of the VRS on the supply of matériel by the
VJ, had the capability to exercise great influence and perhaps even control over the
VRS, there is no evidence on which this Trial Chamber can conclude that the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and the VJ ever directed
or, for that matter, ever felt the need to attempt to direct, the actual military
operations of the VRS, or to influence those operations beyond that which would
 have flowed naturally from the coordination of military objectives and activities by
the VRS and VJ at the highest levels.
Article 2 findings:
The armed forces of the Republika Srpska could not be considered as de facto organs or
agents of the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro),
either in op{tina Prijedor or more generally. For that reason, each of the victims of the acts
ascribed to the accused in Section III of this Opinion and Judgment enjoy the protection of
the prohibitions contained in Common Article 3, applicable as it is to all armed conflicts,
rather than the protection of the more specific grave breaches regime applicable to civilians
in the hands of a party to an armed conflict of which they are not nationals, which falls under
Article 2 of the Statute. Such a conclusion is, of course, without prejudice to the position of
those citizens of the
Article 3 findings:
For the purposes of the application of the rules of customary international humanitarian law
contained in Common Article 3, this Trial Chamber finds, in the present case, that: (i) an
armed conflict existed at all relevant times in relation to the alleged offences; (ii) each of the
victims of the acts charged was a person protected by those provisions being a person taking
no active part in the hostilities; and (iii) the offences charged were committed within the
context of that armed conflict. Accordingly, the requirements of Article 3 of the Statute are
met.
Article 5 findings:
As discussed, this Trial Chamber has found that an armed conflict existed in the territory of
op{tina Prijedor at the relevant time and that an aspect of this conflict was a policy to
commit inhumane acts against the civilian population of the territory, in particular the
nonSerb population, in the attempt to achieve the creation of a Greater Serbia. In
furtherance of this policy these inhumane acts were committed against numerous victims
and pursuant to a recognisable plan. As such the conditions of applicability for Article 5 are
satisfied: the acts were directed against a civilian population on discriminatory grounds, they
were committed on both a widespread basis and in a systematic fashion pursuant to a policy
and they were committed in the context of, and related to, an armed conflict.
Court of Appeals Judgment
Issue #1: Was the conflict in the nature of an international conflict? – Yes
 A conflict may become international if another state intervenes in that conflict
through its troops, or if some of the participants in the internal armed conflict act
on behalf of that other state.
 Trial Chamber made no express declaration on the nature of the conflict after May
19, 1992 when the JNA forces withdrew.
 “Effective Control Test” not persuasive
 Effective Control:
o Issuance of directives concerning specific operations
o Enforcement of each specific operation
 Overall Control:
o Organized and higher structured groups such as military
o Specific instructions not required
o Corrdinating and planning
 Overall Control must be used in the instant case.
 The Trial Chamber focused on finding proof of direct control being exercised over
the VRS but was unable to find any conclusive evidence. This methodology of the
Trial Chamber was clearly inspired by the approach of the ICJ in Nicaragua.
Although it is not expressly stated, the Trial Chamber can be held to have applied a
very strict standard of evaluating evidence, similar to the one used in national
criminal proceedings.
 Nicaragua was not consonant with the logic of state responsibility because it
should not be based on uniform and rigid criteria, but a realistic concept of
accountability. It is also not an all-embracing test because two tests were provided.
 The Yugoslav army exercised the requisite amount of control
o The Political and Military objectives were controlled.
o The creation of the VRS by the FRY and VJ did not indicate an intention to
relinquish control, but was undertaken to continue the pursuit of FRY’s
own political and military objectives which were implemented by military
and political operations
Issue #2: Are the victims of the alleged offenses protected persons? – Yes
 Convention intends to protect civilians in enemy territory, occupied territory or
combat zone who do not have the nationality of the belligerent in whose hands
they find themselves, or stateless persons
 Convention also intends to protects civiliians who, while having the nationality to
the conflict in whose hands they find themselves are refugees and no longer owe
allegiance to this party and enjoy its diplomatic protection,
 In the case, the Bosnian Serbs including the appellant had the same nationality as
the victims. However, it has been shown that the Bosnian Serb forces acted as de
facto organs of another state, namely the FRY. Thus the requirements are satisfied
Relevant Articles:
ICTY Art. 2 Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 The International Tribunal
shall have the power to prosecute persons committing or ordering to be committed grave
breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely the following acts against
persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention: (a)
wilful killing; (b) torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments; (c) wilfully
causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health; (d) extensive destruction and
appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and
wantonly; (e) compelling a prisoner of war or a civilian to serve in the forces of a hostile
power; (f) wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or a civilian of the rights of fair and regular trial;
(g) unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a civilian; (h) taking civilians
as hostages.
ICTY Art. Article 3 Violations of the laws or customs of war The International Tribunal shall
have the power to prosecute persons violating the laws or customs of war. Such violations
shall include, but not be limited to: (a) employment of poisonous weapons or other weapons
calculated to cause unnecessary suffering; (b) wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages,
or devastation not justified by military necessity; (c) attack, or bombardment, by whatever
means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings; (d) seizure of, destruction or
wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and
sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science; (e) plunder of public or private
property.
Geneva Convention Art. 4
country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance
to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going
on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an
unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are
engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with
a view to internment.

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to
one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of
militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those
of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating
in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such
militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the
following conditions:
(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article,
who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and
whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice
to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with
the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the
Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those
Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the
Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform
towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present
Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise
in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as
provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) that of carrying arms openly;

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of
war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an

authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members
thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents,
supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare
of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed
forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an
identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant
marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit
by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy

spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to
form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and
respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present
Convention:

(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied