A/HRC/3/2 page 39 international humanitarian law. It jeopardized the lives of many civilians and prevented humanitarian assistance from reaching them. Injured persons needing to be transferred to hospitals north of Tyre could not get the medical care needed. 148. By using this argument, IDF simply changed the status of all civilian objects by making them legitimate targets because they might be used by Hezbollah. The principle of distinction requires the Parties to the conflict to carefully assess the situation of each location they intend to hit to determine whether there is sufficient justification to warrant an attack. Further, the Commission is convinced that damage inflicted to some infrastructure was done for the sake of destruction. 4. Precautionary measures in attacks (a) Warnings: leaflets, phone, text and loudspeaker messages 149. From mid-July on, IDF began warning villagers in the south to evacuate their towns and villages. The warnings sere given by leaflets dropped by aircraft, through recorded messages to telephones and by loudspeaker. The Commission obtained examples of some of these leaflets (see annex VI). 150. On 25 July 2006 the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs published on its official website120 the following example of a warning to Lebanese civilians to leave areas allegedly being used to launch rockets and not to travel by truck: “To the people of Lebanon Pay attention to these instructions!! The IDF will intensify its activities and will heavily bomb the entire area from which rockets are being launched against the State of Israel. Anyone present in these areas is endangering his life! In addition, any pickup truck or truck travelling south of the Litani River will be suspected of transporting rockets and weapons and may be bombed. You must know that anyone travelling in a pickup truck or truck is endangering his life. The State of Israel.” 151. International humanitarian law requires that warring parties give “effective advance warning” of attacks which may affect the civilian population. It is also generally accepted that a warning is not required when circumstances do not permit, such as in cases where the element of surprise is essential.”121 State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law. Obligations with respect to the principle of distinction and the conduct of hostilities remain