A/HRC/11/31 page 6 reiterated that effective measures to guarantee and monitor the implementation of human rights should be taken in respect of civilian populations in situations of armed conflict, including people under foreign occupation, and that effective protection against violations of their human rights should be provided, in accordance with international human rights law and applicable international humanitarian law. The discussions are summarized in the paragraphs below. II. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK: INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW (SESSION 1) 9. The question of the complementary and mutually reinforcing nature of international human rights and international humanitarian law was thoroughly discussed. The relationship between the two bodies of law was analysed from the perspective of three different areas: (a) the scope of application; (b) the question of the subjects of the law; and (c) issues relating to the application of international human rights and international humanitarian law to particular cases. 10. With regard to the question of scope of application, it was generally indicated that international human rights law applied at all times, while international humanitarian law applied to situations of armed conflict, both international and non-international. The Human Rights Committee, in its general comment No. 31, reiterated that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights continued to apply in situations of armed conflict to which the rules of international humanitarian law were applicable. This position had been reiterated by the International Court of Justice in The wall advisory opinion, as well as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda decision. 11. It was noted that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contained provisions dealing with states of emergency, including during situations of international or non-international armed conflict, which applied if and to the extent that the situation constituted a threat to the life of the nation. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, for example, envisaged that certain treaty obligations could be derogated from in situations of public emergency that threaten the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed. It was recalled that article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant explicitly indicated the Covenant obligations that were non-derogable, including the right to life, the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment, or of medical or scientific experimentation without consent, the prohibition of slavery, slave trade and servitude, the prohibition of imprisonment on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation, the principle of legality in the field of criminal law, the recognition of everyone as a person before the law, and the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It was pointed out, however, that even when derogations to human rights obligations were lawful, they were often not adequate to the situation they were trying to address. It was argued that it was often possible to achieve the same or more effective results through the application of lawful limitation clauses. 12. It was recalled that, in order for international humanitarian law to be applicable, it had to be demonstrated that the situation amounted to an armed conflict. It was noted that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia had indicated that, in order to be considered an armed conflict, hostilities had to be protracted rather than sporadic. Below this