A/HRC/36/55 turn themselves in and lay down their weapons, including fugitives. These individuals have generally included fighters and civilians wanted for defecting or deserting. 21. In effect, the reconciliation process allowed government forces to categorize populations on the basis of allegiance, by filtering fighting-age males, generally aged 18 to 45 years, into two categories: armed group members and wanted individuals who cannot stay in the locality and risk detention if they do, and those who agree to pledge loyalty to the Government. The latter group are permitted to stay but are forcibly conscripted into either local units under the umbrella of the National Defence Forces or into a paramilitary force, or sent to front lines as part of the Syrian army after a six-month notice period. In Barza, some fighting-age males were reportedly conscripted into a local unit called the “Nation’s Castle” within 15 days. 22. Not all civilians were offered the option to reconcile, however. In Madaya, no reconciliation was offered to health-care personnel because of their medical work. Civilians able to remain in Madaya were required to fingerprint statements of loyalty to the Government, while others also underwent background checks. Similarly, in Barza, civilians explained that those unable to reconcile included members of the local council, relief workers, activists and family members of fighters. Civilians in Barza who were able to reconcile submitted to the same procedure as was implemented in Madaya. Civilians in these localities further spoke of lists of individuals who were not offered reconciliation due to their sympathy with opposition groups. As such, the reconciliation process has induced the displacement of both fighters and groups of dissident civilians in the form of organized evacuations. 2. Evacuation agreements and forced displacement 23. Agreements between pro-Government forces and armed groups concerning the four towns (brokered with the assistance of third States) and Barza, Tishreen and Qabun provided for the evacuations of set numbers of fighters and civilians. Parties to a noninternational armed conflict may not order the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of those civilians or imperative military reasons so demand.3 24. The exception based on the security of civilians would be justified, for example, to prevent civilians from being exposed to grave danger. Displacement for humanitarian reasons is not permissible where the humanitarian crisis causing the displacement, such as starvation, is the result of a warring party’s own unlawful conduct. 4 Further, the humanitarian obligation to evacuate wounded and sick individuals from conflict areas exists at all times, and is therefore not limited to the period of evacuation under such agreements. 5 Similarly, the evacuation of civilians based on military necessity may not be justified by political motives.6 25. On 14 April, 60 buses carrying an estimated 2,350 people from Madaya departed for the Ramouseh garage area in Aleppo city, after which they were transported to Idlib. Simultaneously, 75 buses carrying 5,000 people from Fu’ah and Kafraya departed towards Al-Rashidin in western Aleppo city (see paras. 39-43 below). On 19 April, another 11 buses carrying fighters and civilians from Madaya, Zabadani and neighbouring areas departed for Idlib, rendering Zabadani completely depopulated. On the same day, another 3,000 fighters and civilians evacuated Fu’ah and Kafraya towards Al-Rashidin. 26. In eastern Damascus, three rounds of evacuations of fighters and civilians from Barza took place on 8, 12, and 20 May. In Tishreen, all fighters and civilians were 3 4 5 6 6 International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Customary International Humanitarian Law, vol. I, Rules, rule 129 (b). See International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakić, appeals judgment, IT-97-24-A, 22 March 2006, para. 287. ICRC, Customary International Humanitarian Law, rule 109. See ICRC, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Geneva, 1987), para. 4854.