A/HRC/30/61 military purposes; they therefore maintained their civilian character and should not have been directly targeted. Directing attacks against civilian objects and/or against civilians not taking direct part in hostilities is a serious violation of international humanitarian law and, depending on the circumstances, may amount to a war crime. 46. Another concern is that security forces employed weapons that, when used in densely populated areas, are likely to have indiscriminate effects. This concern is strengthened by the fact that the security forces reportedly had the means to use more accurate weapons and munitions so as to better respect their legal obligations, notably the requirements of distinction and precaution. In addition, the security forces publicly declared that they had means at their disposal, such as real-time images from drones, which would have helped them accurately target military objectives. 47. Another precautionary measure – circumstances permitting – is to issue effective warnings when attacks are likely to affect civilians, leaving them adequate time to evacuate before military operations commence. The team obtained no information indicating that any specific warnings were issued to the civilian population in no-fire zones informing them that military operations were imminent. 48. The investigation team did not find information suggesting that hospitals and other civilian facilities, including those of the United Nations, were used by LTTE for military purposes. The investigations did, however, indicate that LTTE repeatedly constructed military fortifications and positioned artillery and other weaponry in close proximity (and often adjacent) to civilian areas, including humanitarian and medical facilities and the surrounding areas of with a high concentration of displaced persons in no-fire zones, thereby exposing the civilian population to the dangers of the military operations taking place around them, including by placing civilian lives at increased risk from strikes by the Sri Lankan Army. There are therefore reasonable grounds to believe that the conduct of the LTTE violated its obligations under international humanitarian law to take all feasible measures to protect the civilian population and civilian objects against the effects of attacks. I. Control of movement 49. The findings made by the investigation team indicate that there are reasonable grounds to believe that LTTE had a clear high-level policy of preventing civilians from leaving the Vanni, thereby unlawfully interfering with their freedom of movement. Findings also showed that the policy hardened in January 2009, although the specific instructions on how LTTE cadres should prevent anyone from leaving have yet to be clarified. Nevertheless, the information gathered indicated that a number of individuals, including several children, were shot dead, injured or beaten by LTTE cadres as they tried to leave, in contravention of their right to life and physical integrity. These acts may amount to direct attacks on civilians not taking direct part in hostilities, in violation of international humanitarian law. If established before a court of law, and depending on the circumstances, such conduct may amount to a war crime. 50. By compelling civilians to remain within the area of active hostilities, LTTE also violated its obligation under international humanitarian law to take all feasible measures to protect the civilian population under its control against the effects of attacks from the security forces. 10