A/HRC/5/5 page 23 “Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.”59 55. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the large number of ratifications the Statute has received and is convinced of its usefulness in contributing to ending impunity for those responsible for the release of toxic and dangerous products in the course of hostilities. B. Continued application of international human rights law during armed conflict 56. The Special Rapporteur notes that although humanitarian law provides an important legal framework to address the phenomena of release of toxic and dangerous products during armed conflict, norms of international human rights law remain applicable. While international humanitarian law rules will govern the conduct of parties to a conflict in order to avoid the release of toxic products which could have adverse effects on the local population, human rights law will govern the response of Governments after the fact. In other words, in the context of armed conflicts, the humanitarian law regime seeks to prevent the cause of contamination, while human rights law will address its effects. The State affected by the release of toxic and dangerous products has an obligation to guarantee the fulfilment of all human rights which might be adversely affected, including the right to life, to adequate food, to health, to work and to information. 57. The applicability of human rights law to situations of armed conflict has some advantages. Whereas the applicability of humanitarian law will end with the cessation of hostilities, human rights obligations remain applicable in peacetime. This is particularly important in respect of the release of toxic products, as the negative effects of such a release are very likely to continue for a long time after the end of the conflict. Furthermore, seeking reparation for violations of human rights might be easier than for violations of international humanitarian law. Indeed, the bearer of human rights obligations is easy to identify: the main duty-bearer being the State on whose territory the violation took place or the State which exercises control over that territory. In addition, by controlling the territory on which the violation has occurred, the State is in a better position to offer redress for the non-fulfilment of human rights. Violations of humanitarian law may however be the result of an act by an armed opposition group or a foreign State. For this reason, it may be impossible to obtain redress and seeking compensation may be complicated by issues of jurisdiction and the general settlement of claims in peace agreements between States. Proving a violation of international humanitarian law may also be more difficult than proving a violation of human rights law. Indeed, proving violations, especially of the rules related to the conduct of hostilities, has always been a complex issue; for example, how does one prove whether an attack was proportional or not, or that dual use facilities constitute a military objective? Some cases are clear-cut but most fall into a grey area. On the other hand, the non-fulfilment of a human right is fairly straightforward, easily observable and thus easier to prove. 59 Rome Statute of International Criminal Court, art. 8, para. 2 (b) (iv), (17 July 1998).