A/HRC/42/CRP.1 776. Of additional concern are recent reports of Yemeni armed forces and affiliated groups preventing access to the city of al-Durayhimi in al-Hudaydah Governorate. Indeed, it appears that the area of al-Durayhimi which is still under Houthi control has been under siege by Yemeni armed forces and affiliated groups. Access to this area is reportedly further complicated due to the presence of landmines. The Group of Experts could not establish the exact number of individuals still living in the area of al-Durayhimi, and therefore the precise needs of its population, although credible estimates indicate around 1,800 persons. The lack of access for humanitarian actors to carry out an independent assessment of the situation is also problematic. The Group of Experts will continue to investigate the situation. (For additional details, see chapter on al-Hudaydah). (c) Legal conclusions 777. Blockades, sieges1242 and siege-like warfare are not per se prohibited by international humanitarian law, as long as their purpose is to achieve a military objective and they are not imposed with the aim to starve the civilian population. 1243 However, it is the effects of such restrictions that need to be examined to determine whether these are – in any specific case – a legitimate method of warfare. 778. The Group of Experts established in its first report that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the various restrictions imposed by the coalition, including the de facto blockade of November 2017, violated the principle of proportionality. The Group concluded this on the basis that no possible military advantage could justify such sustained and extreme suffering by millions of people.1244 In addition, in view of the impact of these restrictions on humanitarian operations, the Group found that they violate the parties’ obligation to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for civilians in need.1245 779. As regards the total blockade of November 2017, there are also concerns that such measures may have amounted to collective punishment. Collective punishments are prohibited by international humanitarian law, including in non-international armed conflicts.1246 While not legally defined, collective punishment is generally understood as punishment imposed on persons for acts they did not commit. Such punishment is inflicted on the affected persons in response to acts or omissions, whether real or perceived, by another party or entity. The reactiveness of the punishment distinguishes it from other unlawful acts. Hence, the timing is central in the determination of whether an act may constitute collective punishment. Collective punishment imposes hardship, suffering or harm to persons who are not individually responsible for the actions that led to the reactive action of the party against them. It covers not only legal sentences but also sanctions and harassment of any sort, administrative, by police action or otherwise.1247 Blockades during armed conflicts have been qualified as collective punishment.1248 Collective punishment implies an intention to punish, which is often difficult to infer from events and information at hand. 780. While the timing suggests that the blockade was an immediate reaction of the coalition to the missile fired by the Houthis into Saudi Arabia, the intention to punish the broader population for these acts would need to be established. The ineffectiveness of the The term “siege” is not defined by international law, but can be understood as “the military encirclement of an area with the imposition of restrictions on the entry and exit of essential goods with the aim of forcing its surrender” (see “International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law Relevant to Siege Warfare”, OHCHR, January 2017, https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/sieges_legal_note_-_final_-_en_1.pdf). 1243 See Art. 14 Additional Protocol II; see also ICRC Study on customary IHL, rule 53. 1244 A/HRC/39/43, Annex II. 1245 Art. 18(2) Additional Protocol II, see also ICRC Study on customary IHL, rule 55. 1246 Art. 4(2)(b) Additional Protocol II. 1247 Commentary to Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, Article 75, para, 3055. See also Prosecutor v Fofana and Kondewa, SCSL 04-14-T, Special Court for Sierra Leone, Judgment, Trial Chamber I, 2 August 2007, para. 181. 1248 See, for example, as relates to Gaza: A/HRC/34/36, para.36; A/HRC/24/30, para.22. 1242 186