A/HRC/40/70 intensity of aerial and ground attacks and described an unfolding catastrophic humanitarian situation. By 13 September, and only days after the Hajin offensive commenced, up to 1,400 individuals fled bombardments and were rounded up and confined by SDF in a makeshift camp in Hajin (see para. 44 above), amounting to de facto detention from the moment of capture. The camp was established only two kilometres from the combat zone, in violation of international humanitarian law. 42 Indeed, humanitarian access to the camp was severely curtailed due to hostilities and the unstable security situation. As a result, the majority of encamped individuals, comprising women and children, including ISIL family members, lacked access to adequate food and potable water and received only minimal medical care. The preventable deaths of at least three children owing to these conditions were documented. Furthermore, most of the residents in the camp possessed no recognizable civil documentation and, like those in the Rukban camp (para. 88), were effectively stateless. 91. In September, 7,000 civilians were displaced from Hajin to SDF-controlled areas, where they stayed in makeshift camps near Kharayij and Abu Khashab towns and al-Bahara village without health-care services and with only minimal humanitarian assistance from SDF. Exposure to the elements, including torrential rains causing flooding, aggravated their situation. SDF denied camp residents freedom of movement, unless they paid bribes, ranging from $700 to $1,200. 92. The question of the lawfulness of their confinement notwithstanding, at all times those detained in camps administered by SDF were entitled to conditions of detention that respected their inherent dignity. Furthermore, all detained displaced persons had the right to an adequate standard of living, including the rights to food and water, as well as the right to health. 43 By failing to provide adequate food, water and living conditions to encamped persons in Kharayij, Abu Khashab and al-Bahara camps, SDF continues to violate these rights. The failure to provide appropriate medical care or assistance to encamped residents also constitutes a violation of the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, 44 as well as the right to health. 93. By October, up to 10,000 Syrian women, men and children remained trapped in Hajin, living under near-constant bombardment without access to adequate food or medicine. When a humanitarian corridor was opened leading from Hajin into SDFcontrolled areas on 5 December, up to 1,300 people, predominantly women, children and elderly persons, managed to flee. VII. Ongoing investigations into chemical attack 94. The Commission received information concerning an alleged chemical attack in Aleppo at approximately 9.50 p.m. on 24 November. Affected areas are said to have included Jamiyet al-Zahraa and Khalidiyyeh neighbourhoods. Up to 100 civilians were reportedly injured. One person reported having smelled chlorine and required treatment for inhalation. Investigations are ongoing. 42 43 44 18 Customary International Humanitarian Law, rule 121, noting that “persons deprived of their liberty must be held in premises which are removed from the combat zone and which safeguard their health and hygiene”. See United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), rules 24–26. At the very least, the minimum core of these obligations applied irrespective of the economic situation or budgetary considerations of the detaining power, and therefore SDF could not wholly transfer these obligations onto humanitarian organizations. See, e.g., Mukong v. Cameroon (CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991), para. 9.3; and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Leroy Lamey et al. v. Jamaica (case Nos. 11.826, 11.843, 11.846 and 11.847), decision of 4 April 2001, para. 203. See European Court of Human Rights, Keenan v. the United Kingdom (application No. 27229/95), judgment of 3 April 2001, para. 111; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Tibi v. Ecuador, judgment of 7 September 2004, para. 157; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, HuriLaws v. Nigeria (communication No. 225/1998), decision of 6 November 2000, para. 41.