A/HRC/2/7 page 18 79. Many interlocutors felt that despite the good efforts by competent authorities particularly the Home Front Command and the local authorities - the overall humanitarian response was often inadequate to respond to the needs of IDPs and those remaining in northern Israel. Reportedly, many persons remained in northern Israel involuntarily, in particular because they lacked the financial means to leave, or because they were too old, infirm or sick.96 Because no domestic “state of emergency” - provided for by law to trigger additional humanitarian assistance - was declared, local authorities were not provided with the necessary means to respond to all needs. Many of the displaced did not receive sufficient assistance from the authorities. To a large extent, humanitarian assistance was provided by civil society organizations and private individuals. While medical services for both IDPs and those in shelters came from a variety of sources, there were reports that the services were uneven, varying from one locality and provider to another.97 During the conflict, hospitals were damaged in Nahariya, Haifa, Tzfat and Mizra.98 One of them - a psychiatric hospital - had to be evacuated.99 Additionally, some 300 mental health patients living in the community had to be removed from the north to hostels in central Israel.100 80. The situation of the Arab communities, 60 per cent of which live in the Northern District and Haifa, raises particular concern. Some individuals, including local authorities, have complained about alleged negligence towards Israeli-Arab communities. According to a survey carried out in Israel, only 41 per cent of the Arab Councils have emergency alarm systems and only 46 per cent have shelters - all in schools.101 It was reported that emergency instructions for residents were provided in Hebrew and, exceptionally, in Russian. Moreover, on several occasions Arab Israelis stated that before, during and after the conflict, their communities did not have the same access to health services, including for mental health, as Jewish Israelis.102 It was also noted that since many Arab Israelis are among the poorer population in Israel, it was difficult for many to flee the area.103 All interlocutors who referred to the specific difficulties faced by Arab Israelis during the conflict insisted on the need to analyse this situation in light of the historic discrimination suffered by these communities in Israel.104 81. It was also alleged that the Israeli Army had installed rocket launching bases near towns and villages in the north, in some cases only a few metres away, such as in the towns of Fassuta, Tarsheeha and 'Arab al-'Aramshe.105 In the town visited by the mission, Majd-al-Krum residents testified that Israeli artillery was located near the town during the conflict. V. THE PROTECTION OF THE CIVILIAN POPULATION IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE CONFLICT A. Lebanon 82. Lebanese Government figures seem to indicate that 200,000 of the original 974,184 IDPs still had not returned to their pre-conflict place of resident as of 24 September 2006.106 83. Internally displaced persons have a right to voluntary return in safety to their homes or places of habitual residence as soon as the reasons for their displacement cease to exist,107 or, as citizens of the country they are living in, to remain or resettle in another part of the country.108 Limitations on this right are not subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others.109