A/HRC/17/44 (g) Misuse of the red cross/red crescent emblem 169. The Commission heard evidence of several instances of misusing the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem. In Nalut in the Nafusa Mountain area, for instance, a witness told the Commission of ambulances being used “as a trick, to enter towns carrying soldiers, and then shoot at civilians in the street”, raising also the issue of perfidy. Similar stories emerged from Yafran. The Commission also notes the widely reported case on 8 May relating to sightings of one or several helicopters over Misrata port dropping mines in violation of the no-fly zone on 5 May. The helicopters, according to some, but not all media sources, carried either the red cross or the red crescent. In a statement issued on 9 May, ICRC expressed its concern at what it considered “recent allegations of the red cross or red crescent emblem being used for military purposes in Libya” and added that “the alleged practices, if true, represent a serious misuse of the emblem”.138 On 17 May ICRC issued another statement on the dire situation in Misrata and mentioned receiving “allegations concerning the misuse of the red cross and red crescent emblems to support military operations and the use of ambulances to transport arms and weapon bearers”.139 4. Conclusions 170. Due to the circumstances of the current conflict, the Commission has not had access to full information allowing it to definitively evaluate allegations of all of these violations of international humanitarian law.140 However, the Commission has received consistent information concerning the level of injuries and type of victims to suggest that there have been at least indiscriminate attacks against civilians by Government forces and a failure to take sufficient precautionary steps to protect civilians. Further investigation would be necessary to determine whether there was intentional targeting of civilians. Protected objects such as mosques and cultural objects have certainly been damaged during conflict. The Commission at this point is unable to determine whether attacks on such objects were intentional. The Commission is able to establish that there have been instances of the deliberate destruction of objects indispensable to the civilian population. The Commission considers that there have been some attacks on medical transports and facilities which appear to have been targeted attacks, with some other attacks requiring further investigation. It is also considers that Libyan authorities have failed to facilitate access for humanitarian agencies to address the needs of civilian populations in Libya. It considers that there have been attacks on humanitarian units, although it is not able to establish whether these were intentional or not without further information. The Commission does conclude that there has been a failure to take precautionary steps to minimize damage to civilian/protected objects. The Commission is also satisfied that there has been misuse of the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem by Government forces in Libya during the conflict. The Commission did not receive any first-hand information concerning violations by the armed opposition force and as such is not in a position to determine whether any relevant violations occurred. 138 139 140 48 ICRC, News Release No. 11/111, “Libya: much-needed humanitarian aid reaches Misrata”, 9 May 2011. Available from www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/news-release/2011/libya-news-201105-09.htm. ICRC, “Libya: Red Crescent volunteers and medical personnel in danger”. The discussion in this segment has been structured around international humanitarian law guarantees. The Commission notes that many of the same actions violate international human rights law.