A/HRC/23/21 3. To fulfil the mandate to the extent possible under the above-mentioned circumstances, the Special Rapporteur completed a mission to the Gaza Strip from 1 to 3 December 2012. The aim of the mission was to investigate issues pertaining to the economic and social rights of civilians in Gaza, which have received considerable attention given the comprehensive Israeli blockade in place since mid-2007, which continues to impose unacceptable hardships on the civilian population. During his mission, the Special Rapporteur also investigated the effects of a major military attack by Israel, named Operation “Pillar of Defense”, which was conducted from 14 to 21 November 2012. 4. There have been several general developments occurred since the previous report relevant to the mandate was submitted to the Human Rights Council. Perhaps the most significant development occurred on 29 November 2012, when the General Assembly voted to recognize Palestine as a non-member observer State, a status that is a step on the path to the realization of the collective and inalienable right of self-determination that belongs to the Palestinian people as a whole. 5. The Special Rapporteur was invited to deliver the opening address at an international conference devoted to the theme of “Expanding the legal paradigm for Palestine” on 8 and 9 May 2013 at Birzeit University involving distinguished experts from several countries. Given that he was unable to attend the event in person, the Special Rapporteur addressed the audience via Skype. In his presentation, he emphasized the limits of international humanitarian law international humanitarian law in the context of prolonged occupation, a concern that he expressed in previous reports. Three overlapping legal regimes were distinguished: (a) International humanitarian law international humanitarian law, as contained in the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (fourth Geneva Convention) and Additional Protocol I: useful for identifying violations associated with behaviour of the occupying Power towards the civilian population of the occupied territory, including construction of settlements, collective punishment, targeted assassinations, diversion of water, excessive force, conditions of detention and imprisonment. There is an additional deficiency here arising from the failure of parties to the Geneva Conventions to uphold the duty set forth in common article 1 “to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances”. If a pattern of persistent violation is present and sustained for a period of years, as in the case of the occupation of Palestine by Israel, steps should be taken to encourage compliance. Such a collective responsibility by all contracting parties to “repress grave breaches” is made clearer in Protocol I, articles 86 and 91, a treaty that has the status of customary international law. (b) Oslo framework: allocation of administrative and governmental responsibilities to areas A (Palestinian), B (joint Palestinian-Israeli) and C (Israeli) that creates a different legal regime, given the different standards of protection and access to law accorded to Israeli settlers and Palestinians living in the West Bank. The Oslo process, with its five-year timeline for the resolution of final status issues, constituted a humane acknowledgement that a belligerent occupation of a society had to be ended. United Nations and European Union reports indicate that the Palestinian presence in area C (which covers 61 per cent of the land but only 4 per cent of the Palestinian population) is under constant pressure and threat of elimination. It is estimated that 350,000 Jewish settlers in about 200 settlements and outposts are living in area C, having appropriated the preferred land, situated mainly on high ground, making use of disproportionate amounts of water exploited from local aquifers, at the expense of the Palestinian population. In other words, the Oslo formula has facilitated additional encroachments on Palestinian territory that violate the obligation under the fourth Geneva Convention on the Occupier to refrain from altering the nature of the occupied country or appropriating its resources. 4