A/HRC/42/CRP.5 Conclusions and legal findings 325. The Mission concludes that the Tatmadaw’s 13 June 2019 attack on Ywar Haung Taw village may have been indiscriminate and therefore a violation of international humanitarian law.748 After soldiers in a Tatmadaw convoy heard a nearby explosion, they soldiers disembarked and fired on the village in a random and indiscriminate manner. As one villager described, the soldiers were shooting “at everything”. 749 The attack injured three people, including a boy, and damaged a school. Based on the interviews the Mission conducted, the Mission concluded that the Government’s claim that the Tatmadaw soldiers were not to blame for the injuries lacks credibility. (f) Overall conclusions and legal findings on Tatmadaw attacks 326. The Mission concludes on reasonable grounds that the Tatmadaw’s attacks on Mrauk-U town and Ywar Haung Taw village on 18 March 2019, on Sin Taung on 21-22 March 2019 and on Sai Din Waterfall on 3 April 2019 violated several rules of international humanitarian law, in particular the rule prohibiting indiscriminate attacks. The attacks on Baung Dut, Mrauk-U Township, on 17 April 2019 and on Ywar Haung Taw village on 13 June 2019 may also have violated international humanitarian law. The Mission finds that these violations also constitute violations of the right to life under international human rights law. 327. The Mission takes note that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has held that indiscriminate attacks under certain circumstances may qualify as direct attacks against civilians.750 International humanitarian law prohibits direct attacks against civilians.751 Such attacks constitute war crimes.752 The Mission concluded that in some instances the manner in which the Tatmadaw conducted its indiscriminate attacks may infer that those attacks were directed at civilians. In the conclusions of its investigation, the Mission found that the attack on Sin Taung and the helicopter attack at Sai Din may have been directed at civilians. The Mission also concluded on reasonable grounds that the Tatmadaw’s attacks and other military operations in the ancient capital of Mrauk-U violated the rules under international law that protect cultural property. Under both international human rights law and international humanitarian law, the Government of Myanmar has an obligation to conduct effective investigations into these violations, including criminal investigations especially when the violations amount to war crimes. 2. Military use of and damage to schools and religious sites 328. In the course of its military operations against the AA, the Tatmadaw has used schools and monasteries as military bases and living quarters. The military has also used schools as detention and interrogation facilities. Using these locations for military purposes has increased their exposure to the conflict and negatively affected the ability of children to receive education and of people to practise their religion. In several cases, schools and places of worship were damaged during attacks by the Tatmadaw and/or the AA. (a) Schools 329. The impact of the conflict on schools and access to education requires further investigation. Based on the Mission’s initial assessment, the conflict has resulted in many 748 749 750 751 752 See J.M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, “Customary International Humanitarian Law. Volume I: Rules” (Cambridge, ICRC/Cambridge University Press, 2005), rule 11 (indiscriminate attacks). LI-214, The Irrawaddy “Civilians Injured, School Shelled in Army Response to Mrauk-U Ambush” (14 June 2019). ICTY, Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Trial Chamber Judgement, 5 December 2003, para. 57 (“attacks which employ certain means of combat which cannot discriminate between civilians and civilian objects and military objectives are tantamount to direct targeting of civilians”). See J.M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, “Customary International Humanitarian Law. Volume I: Rules” (Cambridge, ICRC/Cambridge University Press, 2005), rule 1 (the principles of distinction between civilians and combatants). Ibid., rule 156 (definition of war crimes). 99