Whoever does not comply with his commands, or commits a prohibited act, may be punished by him; but article 50 of the Hague Regulations expressly enacts the rule that _no general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, may be inflicted on the population on account of the acts of individuals for which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible_. It must, however, be specially observed that this rule does not at all prevent[335] reprisals on the part of belligerents occupying enemy territory. In case acts of illegitimate warfare are committed by enemy individuals not belonging to the armed forces, reprisals may be resorted to, although practically innocent individuals are thereby punished for illegal acts for which they are neither legally nor morally responsible--for instance, when a village is burned by way of reprisal for a treacherous attack committed there on enemy soldiers by some unknown individuals.[336] Nor does this new rule prevent an occupant from taking hostages[337] in the interest of the safety of the line of communication threatened by guerillas not belonging to the armed forces, or for other purposes,[338] although the hostage must suffer for acts or omissions of others for which he is neither legally nor morally responsible. [Footnote 335: See Holland, _War_, No. 110, and _Land Warfare_, §§ 385-386. See also Zorn, pp. 239-243, where an important interpretation of article 50 is discussed.] [Footnote 336: See below, § 248.] [Footnote 337: But this is a moot point; see below, § 259.] [Footnote 338: Belligerents sometimes take hostages for the purpose of securing compliance with demands for contributions, requisitions, and the like. As long as such hostages obtain the same treatment as prisoners of war, the practice does not seem to be illegal, although the Hague Regulations do not mention and many publicists condemn it; see above, § 116, p. 153, note 1, and below, § 259, p. 319, note 2.] It must be particularly noted that in the treatment of the inhabitants of enemy territory the occupant need not make any difference between such as are subjects of the enemy and such as are subjects of neutral States.[339] [Footnote 339: See above,§ 88, and Frankenbach, _Die Rechtsstellung von neutralen Staatsangehörigen in kriegführenden Staaten_ (1910), pp. 46-50.] And it must be further observed that, according to British and American views--see above, § 100_a_--article 23 (_h_) of the Hague Regulations prohibits an occupant of enemy territory from declaring extinguished, suspended, or unenforceable in a Court of Law the rights and the rights of action of the inhabitants. [Sidenote: Position of Government Officials and Municipal Functionaries during Occupation.]