A/HRC/39/64 C. War crimes 89. Given the mission’s consideration that non-international armed conflicts have been ongoing in Kachin and Shan States (for the entire period under review) and in Rakhine State since at least August 2017, much of the conduct amounting to crimes against humanity will also satisfy the war crime elements of murder, torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, attacking civilians, displacing civilians, pillaging, attacking protected objects, taking hostages, sentencing or execution without due process, as well as rape, sexual slavery and sexual violence. Certain acts committed by ethnic armed organizations and ARSA may also constitute war crimes. VII. Responsibility 90. Non-State armed groups have committed crimes against civilians, for which they should be held accountable. During the period under review, the Tatmadaw was the main perpetrator of serious human rights violations and crimes under international law in Kachin, Rakhine and Shan States. In addition, in Rakhine State, the Myanmar police force, NaSaKa 11 and Border Guard Police were also perpetrators. Local authorities, militias, militant “civilian” groups, politicians and monks participated or assisted in violations, to varying degrees. 91. The Tatmadaw command exercises effective control over its own soldiers, as well as over other armed actors deployed in military operations. The consistent tactical formula employed by the Tatmadaw exhibits a degree of coordination only possible when all troops are acting under the effective control of a single unified command. This effective control, combined with the knowledge of crimes committed by subordinates, a failure to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent and punish crimes, and a causal link between these failures and the atrocities committed, indicate that individual criminal liability would extend beyond individual perpetrators to their hierarchical commanders. 92. The mission has drawn up a non-exhaustive list of alleged perpetrators of crimes under international law, indicating priority subjects for investigation and prosecution. The list includes the names of alleged direct perpetrators, but focuses on those exercising effective control over them. In relation to the recent events in Rakhine State, this includes the Tatmadaw Commander-in-Chief, Senior-General Min Aung Hlaing, and: • Deputy Commander-in-Chief, Vice Senior-General Soe Win • Commander, Bureau of Special Operations-3, Lieutenant-General Aung Kyaw Zaw • Commander, Western Regional Military Command, Major-General Maung Maung Soe • Commander, 33rd Light Infantry Division, Brigadier-General Aung Aung • Commander, 99th Light Infantry Division, Brigadier-General Than Oo The full list will be held in the mission’s archives, kept in the custody of OHCHR, and may be shared with any competent and credible body pursuing accountability in accordance with recognized international norms and standards. 93. The constitutional powers of the civilian authorities afford little scope for controlling the actions of the Tatmadaw, nor is there any indication that they participated directly in planning or implementing security operations or were part of the command structure. Nevertheless, nothing indicates that the civilian authorities used their limited powers to influence the situation in Rakhine State where crimes were being perpetrated. The State Counsellor, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, has not used her de facto position as Head of Government, nor her moral authority, to stem or prevent the unfolding events, or seek alternative avenues to meet a responsibility to protect the civilian population. On the contrary, the civilian authorities have spread false narratives, denied the wrongdoing of the 11 The “Border Area Immigration Control Headquarters”, disbanded in 2013. 17