A/HRC/42/CRP.1 international humanitarian law has occurred unless one knows the answers to the following questions: (a) What was the attacking party targeting (b) What information was available to the party regarding the use to which the house was being put (c) What information was available to the party regarding the presence of nonfighters in the house and in its vicinity (d) In the circumstances, was the attacking party entitled to rely on the information that it had1399 (e) When choosing how to attack the house, did the attacking party take into account the risk of harm to those known to be in the vicinity (f) Was the attack in fact directed against something else and, if so, was the destruction of the house and/or its inhabitants foreseeable and proportionate to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, or was it not foreseeable 865. In some circumstances, it may also be important to know whether the total harm caused was the result of several separate attacks over many days or the result of just one attack. For the most part, this is information solely within the knowledge of the attacking party. Whilst it may appear to be straightforward to determine the result of the attack1400, generally no conclusion can be drawn solely on the basis of the result. (b) State responsibility for violations 866. Violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law give rise to State responsibility, if an act is committed by State organs, which includes its armed forces as well as by individuals or entities empowered with governmental authority. A violation is also attributable to the State if committed by persons or groups acting on the States’ instructions, or under its direction or control. 867. With regard to international humanitarian law in particular, these rules are valid for both international and non-international armed conflict.1401 In a non-international armed conflict, the question arises as to whether non-State armed entities, in particular when such entities assume the role of de facto authorities, have a similar responsibility as a group. While international humanitarian law does not regulate this question, the International Law Commission (ILC)1402 draft Articles on State responsibility appear to leave some space for the responsibility of non-State entities. The draft Articles explicitly attribute such responsibility to insurrectional movements that eventually succeed in establishing a new State (draft Article 10). In such cases, the acts of the non-State entity are eventually attributed to the new State. However, in cases where a new State is not established, it remains controversial whether responsibility could be attributable to the non-State entities per se.1403 Some scholars have nevertheless affirmed that non-State armed entities are 1399 For example, if the information comes from informers, it may be necessary to put in place measures to guard against the settling of scores. The time that has elapsed since the information became available may also affect the degree of reliance that may be placed on it. 1400 In some circumstances, the “result” may have been manufactured or improved by the defending party, to make it appear that the attacking State had violated the rules. 1401 See ICRC Study on customary IHL, rule 149. 1402 The International Law Commission was established by the General Assembly, in 1947, to undertake the mandate of the Assembly, under article 13 (1) (a) of the Charter of the United Nations to "initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of ... encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification". See http://legal.un.org/ilc/. 1403 ICRC ‘Commentary on Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field’ (2016), para. 890. 207