A/HRC/44/61 notes that failing to direct attacks at a specific military objective amounts to the war crime of launching indiscriminate attacks resulting in death or injury to civilians. 75. The offensives carried out on Ma’arrat al-Nu’man during the second half of December; Ariha on 29 January; Atarib from 10 to 14 February (see annex III); and Darat Azza on 17 February (see paras. 20–58 and annex III) comprised a series of unlawful attacks, not directed at a military objective, and deliberate attacks on specially protected objects, such as hospitals. 76. The means and methods of warfare deployed not only killed and injured civilians, but also rendered parts of Idlib Governorate and western Aleppo uninhabitable. The abovementioned extensive bombardment in Ma’arrat al-Nu’man, the attacks on the last remaining hospitals in Ariha and Darat Azza, and the offensives on Atarib left inhabitants with no choice but to flee.45 Residents consistently described how the near-constant bombardment was the direct reason that forced them to flee, leaving towns and villages almost completely depopulated. 77. Notwithstanding a parallel campaign to reclaim Syrian territory by pro-Government forces against Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and armed groups, the consistent use by proGovernment forces of unguided air-delivered munitions, artillery and rockets, including with cluster munitions in densely populated civilian areas; the number of civilians killed or wounded; the extensive damage to homes and civilian infrastructure, including medical facilities; and the high number of civilians forced to flee indicate that the offensive was carried out in an unlawful indiscriminate way,46 amounting to a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population. 47 78. The mass wave of displacement that ensued from the above-mentioned attacks was therefore a foreseeable consequence of the widespread unlawful attacks by pro-Government forces.48 Large-scale destruction of civilian housing by air strikes and looting in recaptured areas (see paras. 97–100) further undermined the ability to return.49 79. The Commission notes that, while some civilians went back to their areas of origin following the ceasefire agreement, such returns were mostly documented in areas that remained under the control of armed groups.50 For example, some 140,000 people who were displaced since December 2019 went back to the areas in Idlib and western Aleppo Governorates from which they were displaced. This included some 120,000 people who returned to their areas of origin and some 20,000 internally displaced persons who returned to their previous location of displacement. Ariha and Atarib, both beyond Government control, recorded the most arrivals amounting to approximately 30,000 people per town. 51 Fears of arbitrary detention by pro-Government forces remained one of the factors impeding return to areas recaptured by the Government (see paras. 97–100). 80. On the basis of the above, the Commission finds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that, through the widespread and indiscriminate bombardment of Ma’arrat al- 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 14 International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Gotovina et al., Case No. IT-06-90T, para. 1745; on the absence of genuine choice, see, e.g., International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v Blagoje Simić et al., Case No. IT-95-9-T, 17 October 2003, para. 126. Prosecutor v. Galić, IT-98-29-T, para. 144. See also International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Mile Mrkšić et al., Case No. IT-95-13/1-T, 27 September 2007, para. 472. Prosecutor v. Galić, IT-98-29-T, para. 142. International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Milosevic, Case No. IT-02-54-T, Decision on Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, rule 98 bis decision, 16 June 2004, para. 78; International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, 22 March 2006, paras. 304–307; Customary International Humanitarian Law, rule 129; and Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, principle 5. International Criminal Court, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, Case No. ICC-01/04-02/06, Judgment, para. 1,061. Available at www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2019_03568.PDF. On intent to displace permanently, see Prosecutor v. Stakic, IT-97-24-A, para. 306. https://reliefweb.int/report/syrian-arab-republic/recent-developments-northwest-syria-situation-reportno-14-15-may-2020.