A/HRC/42/CRP.5 officials and ethnic Rakhine, who were appointed to be in charge of Rohingya prisoners, subjected them to physical abuse and violence, including beatings, if they became slow in their work.403 In some cases, prisoners were taken to military compounds, where they were forced to construct buildings, clean and perform other heavy labour. 404 One interviewee provided the following account: I used to be a road construction worker for 10 years. I witnessed Rohingya prisoners forced to work in the paddy fields and brickfields located adjacent to the jail. Sometimes Rohingya prisoners were taken to the forest for collecting or cutting firewood or to the waterfall side to collect rocks for the construction of roads. Prison officials used to bring prisoners in a group of 25-30. Moghs and the police used to guard them. Moghs and police carried sticks in their hands and would often beat prisoners for slowing down.405 Conclusions and legal findings 191. Consistent with the Mission’s legal assessment in its 2018 report, the Tatmadaw continued to engage in the practice of forced or compulsory labour contrary to its international legal obligations.406 Additionally, the Tatmadaw’s beatings of forced labourers and labourers forced to work in prisons407 resulted in a severity of pain or suffering that amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under international human rights law. 408 In many cases, this pain was inflicted as a means of punishment and therefore constituted torture.409 192. The Mission also assesses that many of the cases of forced labour it documented had a sufficient nexus to the armed conflict between the Tatmadaw and the AA to amount to violations under international humanitarian law.410 This includes the Tatmadaw exposing forced labourers to the dangers of armed conflict, such as forcing them to perform guard duty at military bases, which violates the rule that parties to a conflict must take all feasible precautions to protect civilians under their control against the effects of attacks. 411 The Mission also concludes on reasonable grounds that it documented cases that constitute war 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 FI-016. CI-297, FI-037. CI-297, FI-011, FI-016, FI-017, F-022, FI-34, FI-047. CI-297. A/HRC/39/CRP.2, paras. 254-257. International law provides rule on the involuntary use of prisoners to conduct work, but such work is not per se prohibited or regarded as “forced labour”. See Article 8(3)(b), ICCPR and International Labour Organization Forced Labour Convention 1930 (No. 29) (which Myanmar acceded to in 1955), Article 2(2)(c). The use of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment on prisoners is, however, non-derogable and therefore never permissible. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art. 16. Although Myanmar is not a party to this Convention, the prohibition against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is a rule of customary international law and therefore one that Myanmar must respect. See David Weissbrodt and Cheryl Heilman, “Defining Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment”, 29 Law & Ineq. 343 (2011), pp.361-363. Available at http://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/366. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art. 1. Although Myanmar is not a party to this Convention, the prohibition against torture as defined in article 1 is a rule of customary international law and therefore one that Myanmar must respect. See ICTY, Prosecutor v Furundžija (IT-95-17/1), Appeals Chamber Judgement, 21 July 2000, para. 111; David Weissbrodt and Cheryl Heilman, “Defining Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment”, 29 Law & Ineq. 343 (2011), pp.361-363. Available at http://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/366. See J.M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, “Customary International Humanitarian Law. Volume I: Rules” (Cambridge, ICRC/Cambridge University Press, 2005), rule 95 (forced labour) and rule 99 (deprivation of liberty); and Common Article 3(1)(a) and (c) to the four Geneva Conventions. See J.M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, “Customary International Humanitarian Law. Volume I: Rules” (Cambridge, ICRC/Cambridge University Press, 2005), rule 22 (principle of precautions against the effects of attacks). 61