A/HRC/14/40 detention in armed conflict; and the issue of the qualification as unlawful alien enemy combatant to justify the non-recognition of prisoner of war status. In all these situations, the Special Rapporteur took into consideration both international human rights and international humanitarian law norms. 24. Concerning the issue of arbitrary detention in armed conflict situations, it was recalled that while the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention had decided in 1993 that it would not deal with situations of international armed conflict in so far as they are covered by international humanitarian law instruments (E/CN.4/1993/24), it has recently stated that its mandate is to deal with communications arising from a situation of international armed conflict in particular to the extent that the detained persons are denied the protection of the Third or the Fourth Geneva Conventions (E/CN.4/2006/7). For example, the Working Group applied both international human rights and international humanitarian law in relation to persons detained in Guantánamo Bay by the United States (E/CN.4/2006/120). It recalled, inter alia, that international humanitarian law and international human rights law are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. 25. Experts indicated that the application of international human rights law and international humanitarian law to conflict situations is not limited to questions dealing exclusively with civil and political rights. It was recalled that economic, social and cultural rights are also strongly affected by conflict. In that respect, special procedures have also dealt with issues related to, inter alia, housing, health, environment, access to water, and education. One expert indicated, for example, that a group of special rapporteurs, including the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, carried out a mission in Lebanon in the aftermath of the 2006 conflict with Israel (A/HRC/2/7). The Special Rapporteur looked at issues related to the armed conflict dealing with land confiscation, forced evictions and displacement, dispossession of property, as well as destruction of homes. In the joint report it was recalled, inter alia, that the demolition of homes in violation of international humanitarian law and subsequent displacement amounted to forcible eviction, called into question numerous international human rights requirements and, as stated by the Commission on Human Rights in its resolution 1993/77, constitute gross violations of human rights, in particular the right to adequate housing. 26. Finally, experts noted that special procedures have been quite effective and active in addressing human rights situations in armed conflict situations. Experts agreed that the most important challenge remained how their analyses and recommendations were followed up in the different political bodies of the United Nations, in particular the Human Rights Council. Experts noted that taking into account that relevant legal and factual information was regularly provided to the Council, it was for the Council to agree on the action that was required to effectively protect the rights of civilians in relation to particular armed conflicts. III. Session 2: Treaty bodies’ views concerning the protection of human rights in armed conflict 27. In relation to the experience of treaty bodies in protecting human rights in situations of armed conflict, experts pointed out that the different treaty bodies have, in the context of their relevant conventions, made important contributions to the clarification of States’ treaty obligations. Experts noted that the Human Rights Committee has, through its general comments, greatly contributed to clarify the extent of States’ legal obligations in relation to the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in situations of armed conflict. In general comment 29, for instance, the Committee indicated that during armed conflict, whether international or non-international, rules of international 7