A/HRC/14/40 continue to ensure appropriate protection, support and equal access to justice for the women victims of sexual violence during the genocide (see CEDAW/C/SR.884 and 885). 37. Experts recalled that the Committee examined the report of Rwanda and focused on post-genocide reconstruction and prosecution of perpetrators (CEDAW/C/RWA/CO/6). The Committee expressed concern that women’s participation and involvement in the postconflict reconstruction and social economic development has not been fully realized owing to deeply entrenched stereotypes and gender-based violence, as well as other forms of discrimination against women. 38. Finally, some experts raised the issue of the application of international humanitarian law by human rights treaty bodies. It was indicated that the decision to apply international human rights law or international humanitarian law should be based on an analysis of the extent of protection that these bodies of law can offer in each distinct situation. Other experts noted, however, that some treaty bodies have avoided basing their analysis on international humanitarian law given their specific mandate to apply and interpret their relevant conventions. For example, the Human Rights Committee, in general comment 29, did not take an approach based in international humanitarian law but simply stated the conditions to be observed by States when applying the derogations provisions in the Covenant to situations of emergency in armed conflict. IV. Session 3: The role of judicial organs in implementing human rights obligations in armed conflict 39. Concerning the application by judicial organs of human rights law and international humanitarian law to cases involving armed conflict situations, it was indicated that international and regional courts have a wealth of experience and have contributed to the clarification of how these two bodies of law interact in concrete situations. 40. The International Court of Justice has been requested to deal with a growing number of cases involving serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law and has focused on such disputes not only from the perspective of the rights and duties of States, but also from that of the rights of individuals, addressing human rights in armed conflict situations, the relationship between State and individual responsibility, as well as questions of restitution and compensation to individual persons. Recent cases include the Wall Advisory Opinion (Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory); the Arrest Warrant case (DRC vs. Belgium); the Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v. Uganda case); the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro); Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. NATO countries); Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation); and Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy). 41. Experts recalled that the Court’s decisions in the field of human rights have reflected a visible trend towards complementarity between international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The Court, for example, insisted on the application of human rights in armed conflict, thus continuing the trend developed in the context of human rights treaty bodies. In the Nuclear Weapons advisory opinion, it recognized the continued existence of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in time of armed conflict, in particular the right to life. In the Wall advisory opinion, while confirming the continuing applicability of human rights instruments to the extent that they had not been derogated from, the Court stated that as regards the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law, there are thus three possible situations: some 10