A/HRC/4/20 page 10 31. A third example concerns a recommendation that Specialist Juston R. Graber be court-martialled for killing an Iraqi in a raid on a potential insurgent stronghold north-west of Baghdad. Informed reports suggest that the “mercy killing” defence would also be raised in this case, as Graber allegedly shot the Iraqi in the head as the man lay dying.38 32. Despite the extent to which military officials, commentators, and even military judges seem willing to entertain a “mercy killing” defence, it is clear that such a characterization is entirely unacceptable under the applicable rules of international humanitarian law. In international armed conflicts, article 12 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (First Geneva Convention) is clear that the wounded or sick “shall be respected and protected in all circumstances … Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered …”.39 The ICRC Commentary on this provision, based on the travaux préparatoires, considers such “derelictions of duty … [to be] the gravest a belligerent can commit in regard to the wounded and sick in his power”.40 It notes that “the heinous crimes in question were already prohibited in the 1929 text, which established the principle of respect and protection in all circumstances - a principle which is general and absolute in character”.41 33. Although the Geneva Conventions of 1949 limited most protection of the wounded and sick to a narrow class of “protected persons”, the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions expanded the scope of protection to cover all persons affected by international armed conflict. Article 75 of Additional Protocol I extends protection to those persons who do not qualify for the status of “protected persons” under the 1949 Conventions; this article includes protection against “violence to … life, health, or physical or mental well-being … in particular, murder”.42 Similarly, article 8 (a) of Protocol I expands the definition of “wounded and sick” to include civilians as well as soldiers.43 Such persons would also benefit from the protection of common article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, as discussed below, which constitute “a minimum yardstick” applicable to all armed conflicts.44 34. In non-international armed conflicts, common article 3 to the Geneva Conventions requires that “members of armed forces … placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely … . To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds”.45 Additional Protocol II further states that “[a]ll the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, whether or not they have taken part in the armed conflict, shall be respected and protected”46 and “all possible measures shall be taken … to search for and collect the wounded … [and] protect them against … ill-treatment”.47 35. The prohibition of murder of persons hors de combat and the obligation to protect the wounded from adverse treatment are norms of customary international law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts.48 36. Although such “mercy killings” are sometimes presented as a “necessary evil” of war, such an analysis contradicts the foundations of the applicable law. Once enemy combatants have been rendered hors de combat by injury, they are no longer a threat to the opposing combatants, and there is simply no reason why it would be “necessary” to kill them.49