Partijen en gegevens

The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia states hereby that the provisions of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) relating to occupation, shall be applied in keeping with Article 238 of the Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia according to which no one shall have the right to acknowledge or sign an act of capitulation, nor to accept or recognize the occupation of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or of any of its individual parts.

I hereby declare on behalf of the Government that Sweden ratifies the said Protocol and undertakes faithfully to perform and carry out all the stipulations therein contained, subject to the reservation that Article 75, paragraph 4, subparagraph (h) shall be applied only to the extent that it is not in conflict with legal provisions which allow, in exceptional circumstances, the reopening of proceedings which have resulted in a final conviction or acquittal.

With regard to Article 75, paragraph 4(i), Finland enters a reservation to the effect that under Finnish law a judgement can be declared secret if its publication could be an affront to morals or endanger national security. ’

With reference to Articles 75 and 85 of the Protocol, the Finnish Government, declare their understanding that, under Article 72, the field of application of Article 75 shall be interpreted to include also the nationals of the Contracting Party applying the provisions of that Article, as well as the nationals of neutrals or other States not Parties to the conflict and that the provisions of Article 85 shall be interpreted to apply to nationals of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict as they apply to those mentioned in paragraph 2 of that Article. ’

It is the understanding of the Government of Italy that the rules relating to the use of weapons introduced by Additional Protocol I were intended to apply exclusively to conventional weapons. They do not prejudice any other rule of international law applicable to other types of weapons.

The Italian Government understands, in relation to Articles 41, 56, 57, 58, 78 and 86 that the word ‘feasible’ is to be understood as practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.

The situation described in the second sentence of paragraph 3 of Article 44 can exist only in occupied territory.

The word ‘deployment’ in paragraph 3(b) means any movement towards a place from which an attack is to be launched.

In relation to Articles 51 to 58 inclusive, the Italian Government understands that military commanders and order responsible for planning, deciding upon or executing attacks neccessarily have to reach decisions on the basis of their assessment of the information form all sources which is available to them at the relevant time.

In relation to paragraph 5(b) of Article 51 and paragraph 2(a)(iii) of Article 57, the Italian Government understands that the military advantage anticipated from an attack is intended to refer to the advantage anticipated from the attack considered as a whole and not only from isolated or particular parts of the attack.

A specific area of land may be a ‘military objective’ if, because of its location or other reasons specified in Article 52, its total or partial destruction, capture or neutralisation, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers definite military advantage.

The first sentence of paragraph 2 of the Article prohibits only such attacks as may be directed against non-military objectives. Such a sentence does not deal with the question of collateral damage caused by attacks directed against military objectives.

If and so long as the objectives protected by Article 53 are unlawfully used for military purposes, they will thereby lose protection.

Italy will react to serious and systematic violations by an enemy of the obligations imposed by Additional Protocol I and in particular its Articles 51 and 52 with all means admissible under international law in order to prevent any further violation. ’

On accepting the said protocol, the Government of the United Arab Emirates takes the view that its acceptance of the said protocol does not, in any was[lees: way], imply its recognition of Israel, nor does it oblige to apply the provisions of the protocol, in respect of the said country.

The Government of the United Arab Emirates wishes further to indicate that its understanding described above is in conformity with general practice existing in the United Arab Emirates regarding signature, ratification, accession or acceptance of international conventions, treaties or protocols, of which a country not recognized by the United Arab Emirates is a Party. ’

The Government of Israel takes note that an instrument of adhesion to the Additional Protocols (I and II) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, adopted on 8 June 1977, was received from the Government of the United Arab Emirates and placed with the Government of Switzerland on 9th March 1983.

The instrument deposited by the Government of the United Arab Emirates contains a statement of a political character in respect of Israel. In view of the Government of the State of Israel, the Geneva Conventions and the Protocols are not the proper place for making such political pronouncements, which are, moreover, in flagrant contradiction to the principles, objects and purposes of the Conventions and the Protocols, this statement by the Government of the United Arab Emirates cannot in any way affect whatever obligations are binding upon the United Arab Emirates under general international law or under particular conventions. The Government of the State of Israel will, insofar as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of the United Arab Emirates an attitude of complete reciprocity. ’

‛ While deposing these instruments, the Government of the Sultanate of Oman declares that the accessions shall in no way amount to recognition of nor the estabishment of any relations with Israel with respect to the application of the provisions of the said protocols. ’

Accession to the aforementioned Geneva Conventions and Protocols is governed by an identically worded article which stipulates that

‘From the date of its coming into force, it shall be open to any Power in whose name the present Convention has not been signed, to accede to this Convention.’.

Since South West Africa/Namibia cannot, in terms of international law, be regarded as such a Power and since neither it nor the UN Council for Namibia is able to assume the obligations imposed upon such Power by the four Geneva Conventions, the South African Government rejects the so-called instruments of accession of the UN Council for Namibia to the four Geneva Conventions and its two Additional Protocols as having no legal effect. ’

subject to a reservation with respect to Article 75, paragraph 4(h), of Protocol I regarding the resumption of cases which have already been tried, the Icelandic law of procedure containing detailed provisions on this matter

‛ The Government of New Zealand declares that this ratification shall not extend to the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau. ’

We declare hereby the accession of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with a reservation in respect of article 5 stipulating ‘Appointment of protecting powers and of their substitute’.

Article 75 of Protocol I will be applied insofar as:

The Russian Federation decided to withdraw the declaration made by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics at the time of the ratification of the Additional Protocol I in accordance with Article 90, paragraph 2, recognizing ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other High Contracting Party accepting the same obligation, the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission.

In depositing its instrument of ratification for Protocol I, Australia hereby makes declarations of understanding in relation to Articles 5, 44 and 51 to 58 inclusive of the said Protocol.

It is Australia's understanding that in relation to Article 5, with regard to the issue whether, and in what measure, Protecting Powers may have to exercise any functions within the combat zone (such as may be implied by provisions in Parts II and IV of the Protocol), the role of the Protecting Power will be of a like character to that specified in the First and Second Conventions and Part II of the Fourth Convention, which apply mainly to the battlefield and its immediate surroundings.

It is the understanding of Australia that in relation to Article 44, the situation described in the second sentence of paragraph 3 can exist only in occupied territory or in armed conflicts covered by paragraph 4 of Article 1. Australia will interpret the word ‘deployment’ in paragraph 3(b) of the Article as meaning any movement towards a place from which an attack is to be launched. It will interpret the words ‘visible to the adversary’ in the same paragraph as including visible with the aid of binoculars, or by infra-red or image intensification devices.

In relation to Articles 51 to 58 inclusive it is the understanding of Australia that military commanders and others responsible for planning, deciding upon, or executing attacks, necessarily have to reach their decisions on the basis of their assessment of the information from all sources, which is available to them at the relevant time.

In relation to paragraph 5(b) of Article 51 and to paragraph 2(a)(iii) of Article 57, it is the understanding of Australia that references to the ‘military advantage’ are intended to mean the advantage anticipated from the military attack considered as a whole and not only from isolated or particular parts of that attack and that the term ‘military advantage’ involves a variety of considerations including the security of attacking forces. It is further the understanding of Australia that the term ‘concrete and direct military advantage anticipated’, used in Articles 51 and 57, means a bona fide expectation that the attack will make a relevant and proportional contribution to the objective of the military attack involved.

It is the understanding of Australia that the first sentence of paragraph 2 of Article 52 is not intended to, nor does it, deal with the question of incidental or collateral damage resulting from an attack directed against a military objective. ’

The Arab Republic of Egypt while welcoming the adoption of the diplomatic conference on June 1977 of the Protocols Additional I and II to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 in six languages including the arabic language, all original texts are certified and equally authentic with no prevalence of one single language over the other.

While on comparison of the original arabic text of the Protocols Additional I and II with the other original texts, it became evident that in some respects the arabic text does not fully correspond with the other original texts to the extent that it is at variance in terms of expression and substance with some of the provisions of Additional Protocols I and II adopted by countries in the field of international law and humanitarian relations.

Hence the Arab Republic of Egypt on the occasion of the deposit of the instrument of ratification of Additional Protocols I and II to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 with depositary, the Swiss Federal Council, wishes to declare that in that respect it shall adopt the meaning which best reconciles the original texts of Protocols Additional I and II.

The Arab Republic of Egypt while ratifying the Protocols Additional I and II of 1977 to Geneva Conventions 1949 wishes to express its conviction that the provisions of Protocols Additional I and II represent the minimum level of legal and actual protection bound to be afforded to persons and civil and cultural objects in armed conflict.

Based on its strong conviction of the principles of the great islamic Sharia the Arab Republic of Egypt wishes, at the same time, to emphasize that it is the duty of all nations alike to refrain from involvement of innocent civilians in armed conflict, furthermore they should make all efforts, to the maximum extent possible, towards that end as an indispensable action for the survival of humanity, cultural heritage and civilization of all countries and nations.

The Arab Republic of Egypt while declaring its commitment to respect all the provisions of Protocols Additional I and II, wishes to emphasize, on the basis of reciprocity, its uphold of the right to react against any violation by any party of the obligations imposed by Protocols Additional I and II with all means admissible under international law in order to prevent any further violation. In this context it is worthy to assert that the military commanders planning or executing attacks take their decisions on the basis of their assessment of all kinds of information available to them at the time of military operations.

[...] declares that it recognizes ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other High Contracting Party accepting the same obligation, the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission to enquire into allegations by such other Party, as authorized by Article 90 of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

[...] decided on to succeed to the reservations and declarations made by the Former Republic of Yugoslavia: The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia states hereby that the provisions of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) relating to occupation, shall be applied in keeping with Article 238 of the Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia according to which no one shall have the right to acknowledge or sign an act of capitulation, nor to accept or recognize the occupation of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or any of its individual parts.

In regard of Article 88 paragraph 2 of ‘The Additional Protocol to the Protection of Victims in the international Armed Conflicts (Protocol I)’ which states ‘The High Contracting Parties shall co-operate in the matter of extradition’, the Mongolian law which prohibits deprivation and extradition of its citizens from Mongolia shall be respected.

The State of Qatar declares before any other High Contracting party accepting the same commitment, that it recognizes ipso facto and without special agreement the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission to consider the allegations of such other Party.

Yet the State of Qatar expressing reservations that this declaration is by no means construed as a recognition of Israel by the State of Qatar or as consenting to enter into dealings with Israel.

… In the view of the Government of the State of Israel such declaration, which is explicitly of a political character, is incompatible with the purposes and objectives of this Convention and cannot in any way affect whatever obligations are binding upon Qatar under general International Law or under particular Conventions.

The Government of the State of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards Qatar an attitude of complete reciprocity. ’

The Swedish Government hereby declares that it cannot accept the new wordings of Articles 7 and 8 of Annex 1[lees: I]to the Additional Protocol I.

The Swedish Government regrets this decision which has been taken for the following reasons.

Swedish technical experts have expressed serious doubts as to the possibilities to live up to the new rules contained in Articles 7 and 8.

Concerning Article 7, the advice is that blue domes absorb more heat than domes of colours normally used in signal lights for aircraft. The glass dome will thereby be heated from the inside, while chilled immensely on the outside from the extremely cold air at high altitude. The result will be a substantial risk of the glass shattering — as has also been shown in field experiments.

Apart from these technical objections, especially related to the colour blue, it is our opinion that ordinary anti-collision lights are sufficient in this context, and that rules concerning specific colours on these signals are superfluous and lead to expenses. Sweden, as well as almost all the countries in the world, has no special airfleet for the single purpose of transporting sick and wounded in times of armed conflict, but rely on ordinary aircrafts, requisited ad hoc. We foresee problems related to the fitting and changing of domes on all the lights of these civil planes, as well as to the storing and re-matching of the thus exchanged domes.

Concerning Article 8, the advice is that the new rules entail a risk of blocking emergency frequencies, and that transmission through transponder is a safer means.

All other amendments are accepted by the Swedish Government. ’

‛ Whereas it is provided in paragraph 2(a) of Article 90, the Republic of Lithuania declares that it recognizes ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other High Contracting Party accepting the same obligation, the competence of the Commission to enquire into allegations by such other Party, as authorized by Article 90.

‛ Pursuant to Article 90 (2) of the Protocol, the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago declares that it recognizes the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission. ’

The Government of the Cook islands declares that it recognizes ipso facto and without special areement[lees: agreement], in relation to any other High Contracting Party accepting the same obligation, the competence of the international Fact-Finding Commission to enquire into allegations by such other Party, as authorized by Article 90 of Protocol I.

The Government of the Republic of Cyprus declares that it recognizes ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other High Contracting Party accepting the same obligation, the competence of the international Fact-Finding Commission to enquire into allegations by such other Party, as authorized by Article 90 of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12^th, 1949, adopted in Geneva on June 8^th, 1977, relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts.

(...) has the honour to declare, on behalf of the UK Government, that its ratification of the Additional Protocols shall be extended to the following territories for whose international relations it is responsible:

Anguilla ; Bermuda ; British Antarctic Territory ; British Indian Ocean Territory ; British Virgin Islands ; Cyaman Ilsands ; Falkland Islands ; Montserrat ; Pitcairn ; Henderson ; Ducie and Oeno Islands ; St Helena and Dependencies ; South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands ; Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia ; Turks and Caicos Islands.

[...] the following statements in respect of the extension of the UK Government's ratification of [ ..] to the above territories:

The UK Government reserves the right to extend its ratification of the Additional Protocols and/or its declaration in respect of the recognition of competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission at a later date to any other territories for whose international relations the UK Government is responsible.

[...] The Argentine Republic rejects the British claim to extend the application of the indicated Protocols to the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and to accept the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission in accordance with Protocol I in relation to these territories.

The Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, adopted at Geneva on 8 June 1977 apply to the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands as being an integral part of the territory of the Argentine Republic, by virtue of the ratification of the said Protocols by the Argentine government on 26 November 1996 and the acceptance of the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission announced on 11 October 1966.

In relation to the Falkland Islands, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25, in which there is a dispute over sovereignty, and asked that the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom re-initiate negotiations with a view to find a peaceful and definite solution to the dispute, with the mediation of the United Nations Secretary-General, who will inform the General Assembly about any progress.

The Argentine Republic reaffirms its right to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the surrounding maritime spaces.

[...]

The Government of the Republic of Mauritius has the honour to declare that it objects to the inclusion of the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’ in the list of territories mentioned in the Declaration deposited by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with the Swiss Federal Council on 2 July 2002 concerning the applicability of the Protocol I and II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, adopted at Geneva on 8 June 1977, and therefore rejects the said Declaration in so far as it purports to extend the ratification by the UK Government of the said Protocols to the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’.

The Government of the Republic of Mauritius does not recognise the competence of the British Government to adhere to any international instrument on behalf of the Chagos Archipelago, which forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius. The Government of the Republic of Mauritius wishes to reassert the unequivocal sovereignty of Mauritius over the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia.

Her Britannic Majesty's Embassy also has the honor to declare, on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom, that its ratification of Protocol I and II extends to the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Isle of Man, in addition to the territories for whose international relations the United Kingdom is responsible and to which these Protocols were extended on 2 July 2002. In this respect, both the statements lodged on 2 July 2002 in respect of the extension of Protocol I, and the Government's declaration of recognition of 17 May 1999 in respect of the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission, shall also apply to the territories to which Protocol I is now extended.

Her Britannic Majesty's Embassy has the honor to declare, on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom, that its ratification of the above Protocols extends to the Bailiwick of Jersey, in addition to the territories to which they have already been extended.

In this respect, both the statements lodged on 2 July 2002 in respect of the extension of Protocol I and the Government's declaration of 17 May 1999 in respect of recognition of the competence of the International Fact Finding Commission shall also apply.

[...] has the honour to register its strong objection against the extension by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory", of the Agreements listed at Annex and in respect of which the Government of Switzerland is the depositary.

The Government of the Republic of Mauritius considers that by extending these Agreements to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory", the United Kingdom purported to exercise sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago - a claim which is untenable under international law.

The Government of the Republic of Mauritius wishes to reiterate in emphatic terms that it does not recognize the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory". The fact that the Chagos Archipelago is, and has always been, part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, and that the United Kingdom has never had sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, has been authoritatively established by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019, on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965.

In this authoritative legal determination, the Court declared that the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius had not been lawfully completed in 1968, since the Chagos Archipelago had been unlawfully detached in 1965, in violation of the right of self-determination of peoples and the Charter of the United Nations, as applied and interpreted in accordance with UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, resolution 2066 (XX) of 16 December 1965, resolution 2232 (XXI) of 20 December 1966 and resolution 2357 (XXII) of 19 December 1967. Accordingly, it went on to hold that the United Kingdom's ongoing administration of the Chagos Archipelago, as the so-called "British lndian Ocean Territory", was an internationally wrongful act, of a continuing nature, that engaged the State responsibility of the United Kingdom. It determined that the United Kingdom is under a legal obligation to terminate its unlawful colonial administration "as rapidly as possible".

The Court further determined that all UN Member States have an obligation to cooperate with the United Nations in facilitating the completion of the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius as rapidly as possible, including an obligation not to support the continuing wrongful conduct of the United Kingdom in maintaining its colonial administration in the Chagos Archipelago.

On 22 May 2019, the General Assembly, by an overwhelming majority of 116 votes to 6, adopted resolution 73/295. By this resolution, it endorsed the Court's Advisory Opinion, affirmed that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, and demanded that the United Kingdom terminate its unlawful colonial administration within a maximum of six months, that is, by no later than 22 November 2019. That deadline has now expired.

Moreover, the General Assembly in its resolution called upon Member States to "cooperate with the United Nations to ensure the completion of the decolonization of Mauritius as rapidly as possible" and to refrain from conduct that might impede or delay the completion of decolonization. It further called upon the United Nations and all its specialized agencies to recognize that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, to support the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius as rapidly as possible, and to refrain from impeding that process by recognizing the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory". Lastly, the resolution also called upon "all other international, regional and intergovernmental organizations, including those established by treaty," to recognize that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, to support its speedy decolonization, and to "refrain from impeding that process" by recognizing the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory".

The Republic of Mauritius has, over the years, consistently asserted, and hereby reasserts, its full sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. The Government of the Republic of Mauritius therefore unequivocally protests against the extension by the United Kingdom of the Agreements listed at Annex to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory" and against the purported exercise by the United Kingdom of any sovereignty, rights or jurisdiction within the territory of the Republic of Mauritius.

For the above stated reasons, which arise from established principles of international law as authoritatively interpreted and applied by the International Court of Justice and endorsed by the UN General Assembly, the Government of the Republic of Mauritius does not recognize the extension by the United Kingdom of the Agreements listed at Annex to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory", reserves all its rights in this regard, and calls upon all States Parties to the Agreements listed at Annex to reject the United Kingdom's extension of these Agreements to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory".

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade of the Republic of Mauritius kindly requests that the present objection be duly recorded, circulated and registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

The Kingdom of Tonga recognizes ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other High Contracting Party accepting the same obligation, the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission to enquire into allegations by such other Party, as authorized by Article 90 of Protocol I.

The Government of the Republic of Korea recognizes ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other High Contracting Party accepting the same obligation, the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission to enquire into allegations by such other Party, as authorized by Article 90 of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. ’

The Republic of Montenegro declares that it recognizes ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other High Contracting Party accepting the same obligation, the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission to enquire into allegations by such other Party, as authorized by Article 90 of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

The Republic of Estonia declares that it recognises ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other High Contracting Party accepting the same obligation, the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission to enquire into allegations by such other Party, as authorised by Article 90 of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

The Government of Lesotho declares that it recognizes ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other High Contracting Party accepting the same obligation, the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission to enquire into allegations by such other Party, as authorized by Article 90 of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

The Government of the State of Kuwait declares that it recognises ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other High Contracting Party accepting the same obligation, the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission to enquire into allegations by such other Pary[lees: Party], as authorized by Article 90 of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

[…] the Republic of Malawi recognizes ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other High Contracting Party accepting the same obligation, the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission to enquire into allegations by such other Party, as authorized by Article 90 of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

The Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines declares that it recognises ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other High Contracting Party accepting the same obligation, the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission to enquire into allegations by such other Party, as authorized by Article 90 of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

The Government of the State of Palestine declares that it recognises ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other High Contracting Party accepting the same obligation, the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission to enquire into allegations by such other Party, as authorised by Article 90 of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

[...] declares that it recognizes ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other High Contracting Party accepting the same obligation, the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission to enquire into allegations by such other Party, as authorized by Article 90 of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.