A/HRC/42/CRP.5 principles of proportionality due to the anticipated loss or injury to civilian life that could result from denying people humanitarian relief, food and other related items.960 Under international humanitarian law, parties must allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief, including medicine, food and other survival items, which is impartial in character and conducted without any adverse distinction, subject to their right of control.961 Arbitrary restriction of humanitarian relief and assistance is impermissible. 962 International humanitarian law also prohibits starvation as a means of warfare against the civilian population, which amounts to a war crime.963 To the disadvantage of the civilian population, international humanitarian law allows warring parties to deny civilian populations food and other items as a means of preventing those supplies from getting to an enemy force,964 provided that doing so does not breach other overriding rules of international humanitarian law or other applicable international law more generally. 421. On the basis of these various rules of international law, the context in which the restrictions on relief and denial of food is occurring, and the information available to the Mission, the Mission assessed the situation through the rules of proportionality under international humanitarian law.965 The rule of proportionality under international humanitarian law prohibits attacks which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life and injury to civilians which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.966 The loss of life and injury that a party is responsible for taking into account does not need to have a direct relationship to the attack, but it needs to be “expected”. The rule of proportionality must take into account reverberating and repercussive effects that an attack has on a civilian population.967 422. Due to the Government’s refusal to grant the Mission access to Myanmar and the restrictions it places on humanitarian agencies, the Mission was unable to draw any conclusions in its legal assessment as to what, if any, legitimate military advantage the Tatmadaw gained from seizing food and livestock from civilians during attacks. The Mission was also unable to draw any conclusions on associated civilian deaths or injuries. It 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 indispensable to the survival of the civilian population).See also, rule 56 (freedom of movement of humanitarian relief personnel). See Prosecutor v. Prlic ICTY, Prosecutor v. Prlic, Case No. IT-04-74-T, Trial Chamber Judgement, 29 May 2013, para. 1582. See J.M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, “Customary International Humanitarian Law. Volume I: Rules” (Cambridge, ICRC/Cambridge University Press, 2005), rule 55 (access for humanitarian relief to civilians in need) and rule 56 (freedom of movement of humanitarian relief personnel). See, also, United Nations Group of Eminent International and Regional Experts, Situation of human rights in Yemen, including violations and abuses since September 2014, A/HRC/39/43, 17 August 2018, para. 46. See J.M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, “Customary International Humanitarian Law. Volume I: Rules” (Cambridge, ICRC/Cambridge University Press, 2005), rule 55 (access for humanitarian relief to civilians in need) and rule 56 (freedom of movement of humanitarian relief personnel). Ibid., rule 53 (starvation as a method of warfare). Ibid., See, also, ICTY, Prosecutor v. Prlic, Case No. IT-04-74-T, Trial Chamber Judgement, 29 May 2013, para. 1582. Assessing the restrictions and deprivation of items indispensable to the survival of the civilian population under the rule of proportionality should not preclude an assessment of the facts under other rules of international law if additional facts emerge. See J.M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, “Customary International Humanitarian Law. Volume I: Rules” (Cambridge, ICRC/Cambridge University Press, 2005), rule 14 (proportionality in attack). See, ICTY, Prosecutor v. Prlic, Case No. IT-04-74-T, Trial Chamber Judgement, 29 May 2013, paras. 1583-1584. (While noting that a bridge that came under attack was a legitimate military object, the Chamber “noted that the destruction of the Old Bridge put the residents of Donja Mahala, the Muslim enclave on the right bank of the Neretva, in virtually total isolation, making it impossible for them to get food and medical supplies resulting in a serious deterioration of the humanitarian situation for the population living there”. The Chamber therefore held that “although the destruction of the Old Bridge by the HVO may have been justified by military necessity, the damage to the civilian population was indisputable and substantial. It therefore holds by a majority, with Judge Antonetti dissenting, that the impact on the Muslim civilian population of Mostar was disproportionate to the concrete and direct military advantage expected by the destruction of the Old Bridge”). 119