37 92. A starting point for this discussion is provided by the criteria for lawful combatants laid down in the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. 112 Under this Convention, militias or paramilitary groups or units may be regarded as legitimate combatants if they form “part of [the] armed forces” of a Party to the conflict (Article 4A(1)) or "belong [...]” to a “Party to the conflict" (Article 4A(2)) and satisfy the other four requirements provided for in Article 4A(2). 113 It is clear that this provision is primarily directed toward establishing the requirements for the status of lawful combatants. Nevertheless, one of its logical consequences is that if, in an armed conflict, paramilitary units “belong” to a State other than the one against which they are fighting, the conflict is international and therefore serious violations of the Geneva Conventions may be classified as “grave breaches”. 93. The content of the requirement of “belonging to a Party to the conflict” is far from clear or precise. The authoritative ICRC Commentary does not shed much light on the matter, for it too is rather vague. 114 The rationale behind Article 4 was that, in the wake of World War II, it was universally agreed that States should be legally responsible for the conduct of irregular forces they sponsor. As the Israeli military court sitting in Ramallah rightly stated in a decision of 13 April 1969 in Kassem et al.: In view, however, of the experience of two World Wars, the nations of the world found it necessary to add the fundamental requirement of the total responsibility of Governments 112 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949 (“Geneva Convention III” or “Third Geneva Convention”). 113 These four conditions are as follows: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; and (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. It might be contended that these conditions, which undoubtedly had become part of customary international law, may now be considered to have been replaced by the different conditions set out in Article 44(3) and 43(1) of Additional Protocol I (Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Additional Protocol I), 1977). This contention should of course be premised on the assumption – for which proof is required - that these two Articles have already been transformed into customary international rules. Be that as it may, the requirement in Article 43(1) of "?beingg under a command responsible to [a] party ?to the conflictg for the conduct of its subordinates" has not replaced that of "belonging to a Party to the conflict" provided for in Article 4(A)(2) of the Third Geneva Convention. See generally the International Committee of the Red Cross (“ICRC”) Commentary on the Additional Protocols (Yves Sandoz et al. (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva 1987), pp. 506-517, paras. 1659-1681. 114 Jean Pictet (ed.), Commentary: III Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva, 1960, First reprint, Geneva, 1994, p. 57: “?Tghere should be a de facto relationship between the resistance organisation ?or militia or volunteer corpsg and the party ?...g which is in a state of war, but the existence of this relationship is sufficient. It may find expression merely by tacit agreement, if the operations are such as to indicate clearly for which side the resistance organisation ?or militia or volunteer corpsg is fighting”. Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999