A/68/297 understood by international courts to include organized non-State armed groups. 88 Similarly, fact-finding commissions have concluded that armed groups that are stable, organized, and have effective control over territory have legal personality regarding a defined range of international humanitarian law and human rights obligations (see A/HRC/19/69, paras. 106-107, and A/HRC/17/44). These include obligations to refrain from attacking or interfering with humanitarian facilities, vehicles, and personnel, and to refrain from harming civilian populations, including through sexual violence or destroying food or water systems. 89 57. Non-State armed groups are also bound by the expectation of the international community that they will respect norms contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially where they exercise control over territory (A/HRC/2/7, para. 19, and E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.5, paras. 25-26). Additionally, the right to health framework recognizes the responsibility of all sectors of society towards realizing the right to health, 90 which includes the responsibility of non-State actors such as armed groups and other arms bearers in conflict. Finally, armed groups have been held accountable for obligations voluntarily assumed through agreements, unilateral statements and monitoring systems under the Security Council (resolution 1998 (2011)), which have included both obligations to respect human rights and to protect or fulfil them where armed groups exercise the control and authority to do so. 91 Armed groups must therefore, at the minimum, respect human rights, including the right to health, and may assume further obligations to protect or fulfil human rights. The obligation of States to protect people against third-party violations continues regardless of whether armed groups are present on its territory, and the presence of third-party armed groups should not be used by States as an excuse to abdicate from their right to health responsibilities in conflict areas. 58. Nonetheless, there is currently a gap in the delineation of the human rights responsibilities of non-State armed groups and in mechanisms for holding them accountable, other than criminal prosecutions. In this respect, the obligation of the State to facilitate the discharge of right to health responsibilities by all sections of society becomes particularly important. States, civil society and international organizations have successfully facilitated agreements on human rights and humanitarian issues with non-State armed groups, including agreements to provide “days of tranquillity” for health workers to safely provide vaccinations. 92 States should adopt, support and expand these initiatives to protect and fulfil the right to health in conflict and minimize the impact of conflict on vulnerable groups. __________________ 88 89 90 91 92 13-42297 Ibid.; Prosecutor v. Akayesu, para. 611; International Court of Justice, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and around Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgments, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14, para. 119; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Abella v. Argentina, Report No. 55/97, case No. 11.137, 18 November 1997. “Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations SecretaryGeneral”, 25 January 2005, paras. 165-166. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 14 (2000), para. 42. Geneva Call, Deed of commitment under Geneva Call on the protection of children from the effects of armed conflict, para. 7. Available from www.genevacall.org; Agreement on Human Rights between El Salvador and the Frente Farabundo Marti para la Liberación Nacional, 26 July 1990. Available from www.geneva-academy.ch. Leonard Rubenstein, “Defying expectations: polio vaccinations amid political and armed conflict”. Peace Brief (Washington, D.C., United States Institute of Peace, 2010). Available from www.usip.org/. 19/24