The mistreatment of corpses during armed conflicts is a grim and ancient practice that persists in modern warfare despite the protections afforded to the dead under international humanitarian law (IHL). This article explores the application of the war crime of outrages upon personal dignity to acts committed against the deceased. Sketching the development of the prohibition against maltreatment of the dead in the early laws and customs of war, it identifies post-Second World War prosecutions as the turning point where violations of such IHL provisions were clearly sanctioned as crimes imputing individual responsibility under international law. Turning to the elements of the modern war crime of outrages upon personal dignity, the article appraises the scant engagement of international criminal courts and tribunals with the offence in contexts involving the dead. It stresses that jurisprudencial guidance must be primarily sought in national case law from European jurisdictions, which have, in recent years, played host to the prosecution of a significant number of war crimes cases involving the degrading treatment of corpses. On the basis of this jurisprudence, the article then revisits the elements of the war crime, examining the particulars of the offence in the context of the dead.

This article delves into Sweden's evolving legal response to international crimes, notably focusing on the 2021 War Poses case before the Swedish Supreme Court. The case involves an Iraqi asylum-seeker charged with violating the personal dignity of several persons, presumed to be deceased, during a 2015 non-international armed conflict in Kirkuk, Iraq. A key contention is whether deceased individuals can be considered “protected persons” under Swedish war crimes legislation. The article examines the Swedish Supreme Court's decision, which deems deceased individuals as protected persons, drawing on the Rome Statute's Elements of Crimes. It examines the complexities surrounding the application of international humanitarian law (IHL) to cases involving the deceased and explores potential misinterpretations arising from the Court's brief and ambiguous reasoning. As Sweden grapples with the complexities of international criminal law, the article advocates for clarity and comprehensive discussion to ensure that justice is served while upholding accurate and harmonized definitions of fundamental concepts of IHL.