25 the armed groups, and it considered that Article 3 common to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and also Protocol II should apply. The medical protection granted by international humanitarian law is linked to the principles of medical ethics and, as such, is raised to the level of a binding norm of international law, which means that no one may be punished for exercising medical activities in accordance with medical ethics. Article 10, paragraph 1, of Protocol II determines that, under no circumstances shall any person be punished for having carried out medical activities compatible with medical ethics, regardless of the person benefiting therefrom. The possibility of incriminating medical activities must be eliminated, because, when carrying out health-related activities, the physician is performing a humanitarian mission in the context of an armed conflict. According to the rules of the World Medical Association, no discrimination may be made between patients, except those required by medical priority. Members of the medical and para-medical profession must receive the necessary protection to exercise their professional activities freely. Finally, under no circumstance, can the exercise of an activity of a medical nature be considered a crime. Nor can the physician be harassed or penalized for having respected the confidentiality of his relationship with his patient. The protection of medical activities is a norm of international humanitarian law, and of general international law, because it is a customary norm contained in Article 16 of Protocol I for situations of international armed conflict and in Article 10 of Protocol II for internal armed conflicts. Consequently, it can be said that it is an international norm of a dual treatybased nature, since it is reflected in human rights treaties and in customary law, because it corresponds to a general practice and to the opinio iuris of the States. Domestic norms that are contrary to the principles of medical ethics cannot be imposed on medical personnel under any circumstance. The Geneva Conventions do not provide an exact definition of the content of medical ethics. The 1977 Protocols I and II made significant progress, in the sense of not obliging health personnel to carry out tasks that are incompatible with their humanitarian mission, or tasks contrary to medical ethics or other medical norms designed to protect the wounded and the sick. Medical activities are inherently neutral and, if they does not include any act of armed violence, are humanitarian activities. The problem in this case is the scope of the criminal category of terrorism in the Peruvian anti-terrorist legislation, which has made it possible to criminalize medical activities. Regarding the physician’s right to confidentiality, paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 10 of Protocol II prohibit the penalization of the physician who does not betray this confidentiality. In a situation of armed violence, an international body for the protection of human rights may take into account norms of international humanitarian law. The norms of international humanitarian law may strengthen or be used in the interpretation of the norms of the American Convention. Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions prohibits “the passing of sentences and the