A/HRC/2/7 page 6 12. While the fighting continued after the adoption of Council resolution 1701 (2006) and even intensified up to the last moment, the cessation of hostilities took effect on 14 August 2006 at 8 a.m. Immediately afterwards, in both countries persons displaced by the conflict began returning in large numbers to their areas of residence. The homes of many returnees to southern Lebanon had been destroyed, and they faced shortages of water and electricity as well as very limited access to health and other public services damaged during the conflict. Unexploded ordnance, especially cluster bomblets, also presented great dangers to the civilian population, particularly in southern Lebanon. Returning Israelis found homes and other amenities destroyed and damaged. 13. While this report considers these matters from the perspectives of the authors’ mandates, strict space and other constraints preclude an exhaustive analysis of all of the relevant issues. These include, for example, questions relating to the jus ad bellum, the killing of four United Nations military observers by IDF,7 humanitarian corridors, post-ceasefire incursions by Israel into Lebanon and the relationship between Hezbollah, Lebanon and other States. Each of these, and a range of other issues, pose important questions which go beyond the scope of the present report. While comparisons of the respective impacts of the conflict on the two sides are often made, the purpose of this report is to provide detailed legal and factual information and analysis as to the human rights consequences of the conflict. It is for the Council and others to whom the report is directed to draw appropriate conclusions from the data and the analysis provided. III. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK A. Human rights law 14. Both Israel and Lebanon are parties to the major human rights treaties relevant to the current situation.8 15. Human rights law does not cease to apply in times of war, except in accordance with precise derogation provisions relating to times of emergency.9 More specifically, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and other international human rights instruments allow for the possibility, in circumstances that threaten the life of the nation, to derogate from certain of its guarantees provided that the measures are strictly necessary and are lifted as soon as the public emergency or armed conflict ceases to exist.10 Certain guarantees, in particular the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or the right to life, are non-derogable11 Lebanon has not declared an emergency in accordance with ICCPR article 4, but it did proclaim a national state of emergency on 12 July 2006. Israel remains in a state of public emergency proclaimed on 19 May 1948, four days after its Declaration of Establishment.12 Upon ratifying the Covenant, it made a declaration regarding the existence of this state of emergency and noted a reservation to article 9 (liberty and security of person).13 As regards economic, social and cultural rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) does not explicitly allow for derogations in time of public emergency, but the guarantees of the Covenant may, in times of armed conflict, be limited in accordance with its articles 4 and 5 and because of the possible scarcity of available resources in the sense of article 2, paragraph 1.14