A/HRC/42/CRP.1 70. Certain features of the definition need to be noted. There is no class or enumerated list of military objectives. Every potential target needs to be considered on an individual basis. So, for example, bridges are not per se military objectives. Each bridge must be considered to determine whether, in the circumstances ruling at the time, its use is contributing to military action and its damage or destruction would provide a military advantage. Similarly, legally speaking, there is no such thing as a “dual use” target. Where something is used for both military and civilian purposes, such as a power plant, the first question is whether it constitutes a military objective. Its use by or usefulness to civilians is irrelevant to this determination. The fact that the power produced is also used for civilian purposes would only be taken into account in the second stage of the calculation, in other words how it should be attacked and whether it is militarily wise to attack it. 39 71. It is unclear whether there is a presumption under customary law that objects normally used for civilian purposes, such as schools and homes, should be presumed to be civilian.40 72. There is apparently very little legal guidance on how the determination is to be made as to whether something is or is not a military objective, beyond the general rule that international legal obligations are to be interpreted and applied in good faith (pacta sunt servanda). On general legal principles, the decision has to be made on the basis of information known at the time. The lawfulness of the decision cannot be determined with the benefit of hindsight. That still leaves questions such as the assiduity with which an attacker should seek information, how recently it needs to have been up-dated and checked for continuing accuracy and what precautions should be taken to ensure that information from collaborators has not been tainted by the settling of scores or the prospect of personal gain. 73. Certain objects are specially protected from attack. Medical buildings, transport and personnel, for example, benefit from such protection.41 This does not mean that they can never be attacked but there would need to be considerable evidence that such an object was not in fact what it appeared to be. Where the problem is the “dual use” of a hospital, as for example where weapons are being fired from the roof whilst patients are being cared for within the building, considerable care would have to be given to the protection of the wounded and sick. Other examples of special protection include humanitarian personnel, peacekeeping personnel not taking a direct part in hostilities and cultural property, which includes religious property.42 Certain areas or zones may be specially designated by the parties as places for the protection of unarmed civilians and/or the wounded and sick. These should be demilitarized. Where such zones have been agreed by the parties, they are also subject to special protection.43 Limitations on how a lawful target can be attacked 74. Having determined that something is a lawful target, the attacking party is required to consider precautions to avoid or at least minimize civilian casualties. These need to be taken into account before the launching of the attack. In addition, there are other elements which need to be taken into consideration during the attack. Both parties are required to basis was more debatable. Disrupting government propaganda may help to undermine the morale of the population and the armed forces, but justifying an attack on a civilian facility on such grounds alone may not meet the "effective contribution to military action" and "definite military advantage" criteria required by the Additional Protocols…” 39 The issue of proportionality needs to be taken into account – this is explained below. It should be remembered that, just because an object can lawfully be attacked, it does not necessarily mean that it is militarily necessary or wise to attack it. The law is not a substitute for the exercise of operational judgement. 40 There is such a presumption in treaty law in IAC: Additional Protocol I of 1977, Art.52 (3). See generally ICRC Study on customary IHL, discussion of rule 10. 41 ICRC Study on customary IHL, rules 25-30. 42 ICRC Study on customary IHL, rules 31-33 and 38-41. 43 ICRC Study on customary IHL, rules 35-37. 18