A/HRC/37/72 16. The de facto Kurdish self-administration and SDF moreover sought to rely on humanitarian aid from non-governmental organisations as well as the United Nations to sustain their internment camps. The aid received however continues to be vastly insufficient to support the soaring numbers of internally displaced persons received from Raqqah and Dayr al-Zawr. Notwithstanding the lawfulness of their detention, at all times internees were entitled to conditions of detention which respected their inherent dignity. All internees further had the rights to an adequate standard of living, which includes the rights to food and water, as well as the right to health. 9 At the very least, the minimum core of these obligations applied irrespective of the economic situation or budgetary considerations of the detaining power, and therefore the SDF could not wholly transfer these obligations onto humanitarian organisations. 10 By failing to provide adequate food, water, and living conditions to any internees, SDF continue to violate these rights in Mabrouka, al-Sad, and Ain Issa camps. 17. The Commission is aware of infirm civilians from al-Sad, Mabrouka, and Ain Issa Cotton Factory camps having been granted medical evacuations only when they paid for them, while SDF actively denied urgent requests for such evacuations in certain instances. In other cases, strict bureaucratic procedures imposed by SDF prevented civilians from being able to medically evacuate when most needed. The failure to provide appropriate medical care or assistance to internees constitutes a violation of the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, 11 as well as the right to health. Once vetted and cleared, the additional burden of requiring all individuals and families to locate a “guarantor” prior to leaving the camps towards Kurdish and FSA-held areas constitutes a denial of freedom of movement. Finally, SDF soldiers extorting money from individuals prior to allowing them to leave al-Sad and Mabrouka similarly amounts to a denial of freedom of movement. 18. Though the responsibility to provide food, water, and adequate living conditions to persons displaced from Raqqah and Dayr al-Zawr governorates rests with the SDF authorities interning them, humanitarian organisations have played an auxiliary role to ameliorate the sizeable crisis. The presence of local and international humanitarian organisations and the impartial assistance they provide has reduced the harm interned internally displaced persons in the foregoing sites have been exposed to, though such assistance has thus far been insufficient to meet the mounting humanitarian and protection needs of tens of thousands of interned, internally displaced persons at risk. C. Persons internally displaced from Hamah 19. During the period under review, pro-Government forces renewed offensives in Hamah, steadily attacking remaining opposition-held pockets of the governorate currently under the control of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and various armed groups including Faylaq alSham and Jaysh al-Izza. Aerial and ground offensives have thus far led to the displacement of tens of thousands of civilians from those areas: since October, hostilities in the north and north-east of Hamah led to the displacement of over 90,000 individuals, particularly those from areas under Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham control. Over 30,000 have been displaced since early November from al-Saan, Hamra, and Oqeirbat sub-districts. Civilians from Oqeirbat 9 10 11 30 the SDF, an armed group exercising de facto control over territory in Syria and who must therefore respect the fundamental rights of persons interned in that territory. See, e.g., Report of the SecretaryGeneral’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka, 31 March 2011, at para. 188, available at www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171 [hereinafter “ICCPR”], at art. 9; see also UN Guiding Principles, supra note 34, at Principle 12(1) and (2). See United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, 13 May 1977, at Rules 24–26. See, e.g., Mukong v. Cameroon, Views, Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 458/1991, 21 July 1994, para. 9.3; Leroy Lamey et al v. Jamaica, Decision, IACHR, Case nos. 11.826, 11.843, 11.847, 4 April 2001, para. 203. Keenan v. the United Kingdom, Judgment, App. no. 27229/95 (ECtHR, 3 April 2001) para. 111; Tibi v. Ecuador, Judgment, IACtHR, 7 September 2004, para. 157; Huri-Laws v. Nigeria, Decision, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication no. 225/1998, para. 41.