A/HRC/42/CRP.5 behind in his village of Sin Taung, Buthidaung Township,949 described how he witnessed the systematic confiscation of property in his village by soldiers after the attack there on 21 to 22 March 2019: During the days following the attack, the Tatmadaw was regularly passing through the village. As most of the villagers had left for the IDP camps, the soldiers stole things, and our cows and pigs were missing. Goods from entire shops were taken away by the soldiers.950 415. Another ethnic Rakhine villager described how the Tatmadaw’s 22 nd and 55th LID detained 27 men in the village of Let Kar in April 2019.951 The soldiers continued over a period of days and weeks to systematically take livestock, goods and other belongings. He observed: “Now there are no chickens, ducks or pigs left”.952 416. Another ethnic Rakhine man returned to his village Sa Pha Thar 953 the night of the attack there on 3 June 2019, to try to locate stray cattle. He described how the next day he saw soldiers moving around the village, searching each house and taking away belongings of the villagers. He commented: “When the villagers returned to the village, each household found something missing from their house”.954 417. Additionally, in a number of Chin villages in Paletwa Township, villagers have been forced to provide food for Tatmadaw soldiers stationed in or near their villages. 955 A Chin man commented: “The Tatmadaw soldiers take food from the people. If they ask villagers for supplies, the villages have to give them whatever they have.” 956 418. The Tatmadaw’s confiscation of property also contributed to the displacement of local populations who are forced to leave their villages due to loss of access to livestock, foodstuffs and other sources of sustenance and livelihood. (b) Conclusions and legal findings 419. The Mission concludes on reasonable grounds that the Tatmadaw’s seizure of food and the Government’s humanitarian relief restrictions in relation to the conflict with the AA are resulting in a serious deterioration of the humanitarian situation for the ethnic Rakhine and Chin civilian populations. The Mission also concludes that these actions are in large part due to the Government’s policy to deprive the AA of those same supplies. Focusing on the civilian population as a primary provider of those supplies is consistent with the Tatmadaw’s “four cuts” policy and reflected in the 12 April 2019 Local Order to stop “the flow of rice and food supplies, medicines and medical supplies, required for the insurgents’ long-term livelihood”.957 420. This conclusion has bearing on the Mission’s assessment of the rules of international law pertaining to humanitarian relief restrictions and denying civilians goods, such as food, that are indispensable to their survival. These rules include respecting the right to adequate food and the right to life.958 Under international humanitarian law, humanitarian relief and goods indispensable to the survival of the civilian population are generally regarded as civilian objects and are therefore protected from being the object of an attack and from indiscriminate attack.959 Their incidental destruction in an attack must also comply with the 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 118 See above: Sin Taung incident. LI-213. See above: Let Kar incident. LI-207. See above: Sa Pha Thar incident. CI-324. CI-247, CI-248, LI-143, LI-145, LI-146, LI-157, LI-160. LI-143. Township General Administration Department Kyauktaw Township, Local Order (1/2019), 12 April 2019, on file with the Mission. ICESCR, art. 11, ICESCR, art. 12, ICCPR, art. 6. See J.M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, “Customary International Humanitarian Law. Volume I: Rules” (Cambridge, ICRC/Cambridge University Press, 2005), rule 54 (attacks against objects