A/HRC/42/CRP.5 Conclusions and legal findings 319. Based on the harm caused to civilians and damage to civilian property, the manner in which witnesses described the attack to the Mission and reports of the AA not being in the village at the time of the attack, the Mission concludes on reasonable grounds that the attack may have been directed at civilians, was indiscriminate or was not proportionate. The Tatmadaw may also have failed to take appropriate precautionary measures to verify military targets or avoid, or at least minimize, loss of civilian life, civilian injury or damage to civilian objects. All of these acts are violations of international humanitarian law. 735 Attacks directed against civilians are war crimes.736 Ywar Haung Taw, Mrauk-U Township –13 June 2019 (e) 320. When villagers from Ywar Haung Taw returned to their homes weeks after fleeing the 18 March 2019 attacks,737 Ywar Haung Taw was subject to a second attack, on Thursday 13 June 2019.738 Many had returned to protect their land and property.739 321. In the afternoon of 13 June 2019 at around 3.30pm, a Tatmadaw convoy was travelling on a road near Ywar Haung Taw when there was an explosion nearby. Upon hearing the explosion, the soldiers740 stopped their vehicles, disembarked and entered the village on foot, shooting and launching rocket propelled grenades towards the village. 741 A monk who was visiting the village described the soldiers as shooting “at everything”.742 Three people were injured in the attack, including a boy who was near a school compound.743 The school was also damaged.744 322. Villagers told the Mission and the media that the AA was not present in the village at the time of the attack. The AA made similar denials. 745 323. The Myanmar Government claimed that the AA had attacked a military convoy with explosives earlier in the week. It further claimed that the “troops fired back in response [to the explosion against the convoy], but in the opposite direction from the village”, adding that government soldiers were not to blame for injuries sustained by villagers during the battle.746 324. Villagers arranged for the injured to be transported to the hospital for treatment, with no assistance from the soldiers who departed the village immediately. 747 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 98 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), rule 11 (indiscriminate attacks), rule 14 (proportionality in attack), rule 15 (principle of precautions in attack) and rule 16 (target verification). Ibid., rule 156 (definition of war crimes). See section above on the Ywar Haung Taw incident. LI-214, PI-167, Radio Free Asia, “Five Villagers Injured, 25 Detained in New Fighting in Myanmar’s Rakhine,” (14 June 2019), The Irrawaddy “Civilians Injured, School Shelled in Army Response to Mrauk-U Ambush” (14 June 2019). LI-214, The Irrawaddy “Civilians Injured, School Shelled in Army Response to Mrauk-U Ambush” (14 June 2019). Ibid. LI-214, Radio Free Asia, “Five Villagers Injured, 25 Detained in New Fighting in Myanmar’s Rakhine,” (14 June 2019). LI-214, The Irrawaddy “Civilians Injured, School Shelled in Army Response to Mrauk-U Ambush” (14 June 2019). Ibid. LI-214; See below section on military use of schools and religious sites. LI-214, The Irrawaddy “Civilians Injured, School Shelled in Army Response to Mrauk-U Ambush” (14 June 2019) Radio Free Asia, “Five Villagers Injured, 25 Detained in New Fighting in Myanmar’s Rakhine,” (14 June 2019). LI-214, PI-167.