Apologies: I was unclear as to why the tribunal provision didn't apply in this case.

The tribunal provision is designed to separate the sheep from the goats -- those who are entitled to the protections of the Convention from those who aren't, in a situation where most are but some aren't.

It's aimed at segregating _individuals_ who have violated the provisions of the Conventions, from a mass who _are_ entitled to the protections.

In the current situation, the _entire organization_ we are fighting is in violation, and hence _none_ of its personnel have any protection.(*)

_Everyone_ on the other side is in violation, by definition.

It's not a matter of determining whether one individual wasn't wearing a uniform, or any other specific violation, since the organization for which they were fighting doesn't abide by the Conventions as a matter of policy.

For example, during WWII the Germans didn't abide by the Conventions on the Eastern Front; it wasn't a matter of individual violations, but of deliberate and systematic disregard ordered from the top.

Therefore the Soviets were under no obligation to treat German POW's any better than the Germans treated theirs; and in point of fact, they didn't.

Conversely, in NW Europe, Italy and North Africa, the German army (generally speaking) abided by the Conventions in its treatment of British and American soldiers. Hence we were obliged to respond in kind.

I hope that's clearly put.

(*) of course, there might be a question as to whether some individual wasn't in fact a member of al-Qaeda or the Taliban or whatever. However, that doesn't bring the Conventions into the picture either, of course.