A/HRC/11/31 page 11 it should be borne in mind that both bodies of law had very similar objectives. In that respect, while humanitarian law contained sufficient legal norms to regulate the use of force in international armed conflicts, there was no similar regulation in non-international armed conflicts and, therefore, human rights law was the most suitable legal framework. 25. The question of international legal standards applicable to detention in the context of armed conflicts was discussed as another example of the complex relationship between international human rights law and international humanitarian law. It was recalled that international humanitarian law, under certain conditions, allowed for a form of administrative detention designated as internment. The internment of prisoners of war and civilians in international armed conflict was regulated by the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. The Fourth Geneva Convention regulated issues concerning the internment of civilians in articles 42, 43 and 78 regarding situations of international armed conflict. Article 75 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions further provided for certain guarantees to detained persons in the context of international armed conflicts. It was pointed out that, while international humanitarian law contained provisions dealing with detention in international armed conflicts, there were still gaps of protection that could only be filled in by human rights law, such as the issue of judicial review of detention. Moreover, international humanitarian law contained general rules on internment in situations of non-international armed conflicts in articles 5 and 6 of Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions. It was further noted that the preamble to Additional Protocol II recalled that international instruments relating to human rights offered basic protection to the human person. Therefore, in view of the complementarity of human rights law and international humanitarian law, the extent of guarantees and protections to be observed with regard to civilian detainees during an armed conflict could be fleshed out by reference to both bodies of law. 26. The situation was more problematic, however, when the question concerned which rules should be applied by non-State armed groups in cases of deprivation of liberty. It was indicated that some may oppose the application of human rights obligations on detention to armed groups, particularly because the issue of detention was closely tied to the question of justice, which was seen as a sovereign function of the State. Nevertheless, the application of the principle of humane treatment spelled out in common article 3 to the Geneva Conventions provided a minimum threshold of protection that non-State actors should be called to observe. 27. With regard to the framework for the conduct of non-State actors, it was further pointed out that certain international mechanisms, such as fact-finding commissions, could look at the application of both human rights law and international humanitarian law by States and non-State actors. Similarly, special rapporteurs had also looked at the conduct of non-State actors. It was further pointed out that there were examples of human rights treaties containing provisions explicitly related to obligations of non-State armed groups. For instance, article 4 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict clearly stipulated that armed groups that were distinct from Government armed forces should not, under any circumstance, recruit or use in hostilities persons under the age of 18 years. It was recalled that, during the negotiations on the Protocol, questions were raised as to whether that provision embodied a human rights or an international humanitarian law norm.