The leader of the combatants should comply with the demands of his side following the requirements or statutes of Part III of the Geneva Convention, which does not restrict itself to listing the regulations relating to the treatment or status of prisoners of war ( Seibt, 1994) . There is, however, a correct conduct of combat groups in the course of clashes. The basic rule forming the foundation of these policies is that “the right of the members of or parties to the violent clashes to select techniques or ways of warfare or battle is not unlimited. This means that it is right for the prisoner of war to be used as bait for his army’s use of restricted weapons in the course of conflict. PI, 35 of the Geneva Convention restricts the means and methods of warfare by using the example that conflicting armed groups are prohibited to apply weapon projectiles and means and materials of combat of a nature to cause massive injury, especially those intended to cause, or are expected to cause, long-standing and widespread, brutal damage to the natural environment ( Seibt, 1994) .
It is true that the adversaries of the army in question had used mines to as a protection to their side. Therefore, the captured combatant should at least compensate for his group’s misconduct by removing the planted mines. The prisoner might also be in a position to understand the actual positions of the planted mines. Further, the Geneva Convention, CIV, 28, states that neither may the existence of the public may be adopted to render some areas or points impervious from military operations, and the captured individual is not a civilian, but an armed combatant ( Seibt, 1994) .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Geneva Convention, P1, 37, prohibits capturing, injuring, or killing an enemy by resorting to perfidy ( Seibt, 1994) . Perfidy, in the context of war, refers to a kind of deception in which an individual from one side of the conflicting armies promises to act in good faith. Acting by truce or raising a flag are symbols of deception forming acts of perfidy ( Seibt, 1994) . In the context of the warring armies in question, there is limited evidence of the leader’s application of deception as an act of good faith by taking the injured individual to his comrades. In fact, he drags the injured enemy to his house and fails to inform his mates until they realize, by surprise that he had failed to kill him. Perfidy is identified in the conducts of the leader’s comrades who are devising to either kill the captured soldier or use him to unearth the planted mines. Perfidy is noted as a constituent of actions related to breaching of the policies of war because war is a crime. According to the GC, it degrades the mutual restraints and protections created in the interest if all civilians, combatants, and parties ( Seibt, 1994) .
Article 48, P2 of the Geneva Convention, as regards perfidy, affirms the need to use the captured combatant as means of removing the planted mines ( Seibt, 1994) . The convention does not prohibit ruses. Such forms of ruses are practices intended to mislead an enemy or to provoke him act recklessly but which may affect no policy of international law usable in armed disputes and which are not treacherous since they do not trigger the confidence of an enemy with respect to safety under the policy.
Reference
Seibt, H. (1994). Compendium of case studies of international humanitarian law.
