II.  REQUIREMENTS, LIMITATIONS AND EFFECTS OF THE CONCURRENT APPLICABILITY OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW IN ARMED CONFLICT prescribes that no derogation may be made concerning the right to life, the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment, or of medical or scientific experimentation without consent, the prohibition of slavery, slave trade and servitude, the prohibition of imprisonment because of the inability to fulfil a contractual obligation, the principle of legality in the field of criminal law, i.e., the requirement of both criminal liability and punishment being limited to clear and precise provisions in the law that was in place and applicable at the time the act or omission took place, except in cases where a later law imposes a lighter penalty, the recognition of everyone as a person before the law, and the freedom of thought, conscience and religion (art. 4.2). In its general comment No. 29 (2001), the Human Rights Committee further includes the prohibition against the taking of hostages, abductions or unacknowledged detention; discrimination, deportation or forced transfer of minorities; incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence through advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred. It has also stressed that no derogation can be made from peremptory norms of international law.61 The Human Rights Committee has also indicated that to assess the scope of legitimate derogation from the Covenant, one criterion can be found in the definition of certain human rights violations as crimes against humanity. In this respect, the Committee has asserted that “if action conducted under the authority of a State constitutes a basis for individual criminal responsibility for a crime against humanity by the persons involved in that action, article 4 of the Covenant cannot be used as justification that a state of emergency    The Committee indicated that “[t]he enumeration of non-derogable provisions in article 4 is related to, but not identical with, the question whether certain human rights obligations bear the nature of peremptory norms of international law.” The Committee further stated that “the category of peremptory norms extends beyond the list of nonderogable provisions as given in article 4, paragraph 2. States parties may in no circumstances invoke article 4 of the Covenant as justification for acting in violation of humanitarian law or peremptory norms of international law, for instance by taking hostages, by imposing collective punishments, through arbitrary deprivations of liberty or by deviating from fundamental principles of fair trial, including the presumption of innocence” (general comment No. 29 (2001), para. 11). 61 49