A/HRC/45/CRP.7 developing effective mechanisms to provide victims with the truth about violations (including the fate and whereabouts of those who have been disappeared). C. Third States – Arms Transfers and Other Support to Parties to the Conflict 412. In the previous reporting period, the Group of Experts drew attention to the responsibilities of all States to “ensure respect” for international humanitarian law in NIACs as a matter of customary international law.623 Pursuant to this, States may not encourage violations of international humanitarian law by parties to an armed conflict, and they must exert their influence, to the degree possible, to stop such violations.624 Third States are free to choose between different possible measures, as long as they are designed to ensure respect for the law. The measures that third States are expected to take differ according to the level of influence that a State exercises on the party to the conflict.625 In the context of Yemen, States that have particular influence are those providing support (directly or indirectly) to a party to the conflict, including the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, France, Canada and the Islamic Republic of Iran.626 413. The obligation to ensure respect under international humanitarian law requires that States refrain from transferring weapons “if there is an expectation, based on facts or knowledge of past patterns, that such weapons would be used to violate international humanitarian law.” This obligation requires an assessment to be made prior to any arms transfer.627 Other related positive measures include conditioning, limiting or refusing such arms transfers.628 With the number of public reports establishing serious violations of international humanitarian law, no State can claim not to be aware of such violations being perpetrated in Yemen. The Group reiterates its concerns that States are failing in their duty to ensure respect for international humanitarian law and that some of the States transferring weapons may be doing so in violation of their obligations under the 2013 Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).629 414. The Group of Experts remains concerned in particular about the continued arms transfers to parties to the conflict, notwithstanding the documented serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law occurring in Yemen. Some major arms supplying countries, such as the United States of America, continue to provide significant arms to leading coalition members. During the reporting period, several States such as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Canada that had previously halted the issuance of arms export licenses to a leading member of the coalition, lifted their restrictions, indicating that they would consider arms exports on a case-by case basis.630 623 ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law Study, rule 144 Ibid. 625 Ibid., rule 144 and ICRC commentary to common article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, 2016, para. 165. 626 See para. 61 above. 627 ICRC commentary to common article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, 2016, para. 162. Similar reasoning could be said to apply to the customary international humanitarian law obligation applicable to NIACs. 628 ICRC commentary to common article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, 2016, para. 181. 629 The ATT prohibits the transfer of conventional arms or related items if the State party has knowledge that they would be used in the commission of certain international crimes: art. 6(3) ATT. The ATT further requires, in other cases, States to consider the importing States’ respect for international humanitarian law before authorising the export of arms: art. 7 ATT. Among State Parties to the ATT are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, France and Canada. 630 In early July 2020, the United Kingdom Secretary of State for International Trade announced the decision to resume consideration of export licenses to Saudi Arabia, having concluded that there was neither a pattern of non-compliance, a lack of commitment on the part of the Saudi Government to comply nor a lack of capacity or systematic weakness that might be given to a clear risk of international humanitarian law breaches. Incidents assessed to be possible international humanitarian law violations were considered to be “isolated incidents” which “occurred at different times, in different circumstances and for different reasons”: Statement available at: https://questions624 105