A/HRC/43/67 a tunnel excavated under Palestinians’ homes at the initiative of a settler organization, was inaugurated.29 At least five Palestinian families were reported to have left their houses owing to the damage caused during excavation of the tunnel.30 On 3 June 2019, the Israeli National Infrastructure Committee rejected a series of objections against a controversial plan to construct a cable car connecting West Jerusalem to the Kerem Compound, and submitted the plan to the Government for approval.31 Building the cable car over houses in Silwan will involve further confiscation and demolition of Palestinian property, and will intensify the coercive environment. Coercive environment resulting from settlement policies and consequent risk of forcible transfer IV. A. Prohibition of forcible transfer of protected persons 37. International humanitarian law prohibits “individual or mass forcible transfers” of protected persons within an occupied territory, as well as their deportations outside of the occupied territory, regardless of motives, although an occupying Power may undertake the total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.32 Unlawful transfer constitutes a grave breach of article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, thus amounting to a war crime. 33 Forcible transfer may also entail the violation of other provisions of international humanitarian law (for example, the prohibition of the destruction of private and public property), and may involve violations of international human rights law, such as the right to adequate housing, the right to family life and the right to freedom of movement. 38. According to the jurisprudence of international criminal tribunals, the prohibition of forcible transfer, which aims at preventing the forced removal of protected persons,34 is to be interpreted broadly, taking into account the vulnerability of the civilian population. Forcible transfer does not necessarily require the direct use of physical force, as it may result from indirect measures creating a coercive environment, where people are forced to leave against their genuine will.35 Forcible transfer can stem from “the threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power or by taking advantage of a coercive environment”. 36 The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has exemplified measures, such as “dismissals from employment, house searches, and the cutting off of water, electricity, and telephone services” and 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 8 Nir Hasson, “U.S. Envoys Break Open Tunnel Running Under Palestinian Village in East Jerusalem”, Haaretz, 30 June 2019. https://peacenow.org.il/en/the-disputed-tunnel-in-silwan-inaugurated-with-american-support. https://alt-arch.org/en/jm_cable_car_en/. Fourth Geneva Convention, art. 49, and Rule 129 of Customary International Humanitarian Law, International Committee of the Red Cross. See also Rome Statute, art. 8 (2) (b) (viii). See PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2. According to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the legal values protected by deportation and forcible transfer are the “right of the victim to stay in his or her home and community and the right not to be deprived of his or her property by being forcibly displaced to another location”. Therefore, “the location to which the victim is forcibly displaced is sufficiently distant if the victim is prevented from effectively exercising these rights”. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Simić et al., Case No. IT-959-T, “Judgement”, 17 October 2003, para. 130. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Naletilić (aka “Tuta”) and Martinović (aka “Stela”), Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Chamber, 2003, para. 519; Prosecutor v. Krajišnik, Case No. IT-00-39-T, Trial Chamber, 2006, para. 724. PCNICC/2000/1/Add. 2, Article 6 €, para. 1, footnote 5. See also references made extensively in the case law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, such as Prosecutor v. Krajišnik, Case No. IT-00-39-T, Appeal Chamber, 2009, para. 319; Prosecutor v. Stakić, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Appeals Chamber, 2006, para. 281; and Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25, Appeals Chamber, 2003, paras. 229 and 233.