A/HRC/29/51 may affect freedom of movement; the stripping of citizenship can affect the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality or the absolute prohibition of refoulement; restrictions on travel, or bans from entering one’s country, can affect the right to work, to a family life and to health; and various types of house arrests or preventive detention can affect the right to safety and security. The right to a fair trial can be adversely affected by preventive measures, such as those that limit freedom of movement or touch upon the right to a nationality and are adopted by members of the executive, based on classified information, without the opportunity for adequate independent judicial review. F. Impact on civilians of the military response to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant 46. On 8 August 2014, the United States of America carried out air strikes against ISIL positions close to Erbil in Iraq. On 23 September 2014, military action against ISIL started in the Syrian Arab Republic. The international coalition of States led by the United States against ISIL includes over 60 partners,91 with various levels of involvement, from carrying out air strikes to providing advice. The States involved in the coalition are different in Iraq and in the Syrian Arab Republic, with some States active in only one or the other.92 By 27 March 2015, the coalition had reported over 3,000 air strikes in which more than 11,000 munitions had been released. The United States has been responsible for 92 per cent of the coalition air strikes in the Syrian Arab Republic and 70 per cent of the coalition air strikes in Iraq. 47. According to the Government of the United States, the legal basis for the coalition’s use of force in Iraq is intervention by invitation, or consent. On 18 June 2014, at a hearing of the United States Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, informed the Subcommittee that the Government of Iraq had requested United States military air strikes to help combat violence in Iraq led by ISIL. 93 This request for assistance by the Government of Iraq is solid legal ground on which to determine the legality of the air strikes that take place on Iraqi territory.94 48. As the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic did not explicitly provide consent for air strikes against ISIL on its territory, the legal basis for the use of force on Syrian territory lies elsewhere. On 20 September 2014, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq sent a letter to the President of the Security Council in which he explained that ISIL had established a safe haven outside Iraqi borders that was a direct threat to the security of the people and territory of Iraq (see S/2014/691, annex). He also explained that Iraq had requested the United States to lead international efforts to strike ISIL sites and military strongholds with the express consent of Iraq. On 23 September 2014, in a letter to the Secretary-General, the Permanent Representative of the United States referred to the 91 92 93 94 See www.state.gov/s/seci/index.htm. Some of the key actors in Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic are: the United States, Canada, Jordan, Morocco and the United Kingdom, with intelligence-only flights in the Syrian Arab Republic; in Iraq: Australia, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Denmark; in the Syrian Arab Republic: Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. See Andrew Marszal and Arron Merat, “Iraq crisis: June 18 as it happened”, The Telegraph, 18 June 2104. Available from www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10908057/Iraq-crisisIsis-launch-overnight-attack-on-Iraqs-biggest-oil-refinery-live.html. See Claus Kreß, “The fine line between collective self-defense and intervention by invitation: reflections on the use of force against “IS” in Syria”, Just Security, 17 February 2015. Available from http://justsecurity.org/20118/claus-kreb-force-isil-syria/. 15