II.  REQUIREMENTS, LIMITATIONS AND EFFECTS OF THE CONCURRENT APPLICABILITY OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW IN ARMED CONFLICT a conflict continues for many years, a State must meet its international responsibilities for a wide range of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.96 A criterion that could be used to determine which body of law should be applied to a particular situation is that of effective control: the more effective the control over persons or territory, the more human rights law would constitute the appropriate reference framework. In this respect, it has been argued that the human rights law paradigm posits effective control over a territory and/or an individual, while the international humanitarian law paradigm posits an absence or breakdown of control as a result of armed conflict. As a way to inform the lex specialis principle in the context of armed conflict, it has been suggested that the stabler the situation, the more the human rights paradigm would be applicable; the less stability and effective control, the more the international humanitarian law paradigm would be applicable to supplement human rights law.97 Thus, instead of focusing solely on the existence of a conflict, the analysis should concentrate on stability and effective control. Clearly, there are situations in which effective control over individuals can occur in a context of overall lack of control over a territory. This lack of control over territory does not imply that the human rights paradigm can be ignored. As indicated above, the Human Rights Committee has interpreted that the question of effective control referred to in article 2.1 of the Covenant is related not only to territorial control, but also to control over persons. In conformity with the rules of interpretation laid out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Human Rights Committee has interpreted the provision in article 2 of the Covenant to mean that States have human rights obligations vis-à-vis all individuals within their fact that at the time Darfur was in a situation of internal armed conflict and that the alleged violations were carried out by Sudanese security forces, it was found that the Government of the Sudan had failed to respect its obligations under international human rights law. Available from www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/11thOHCHR22jan09.pdf. 96   See Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall. 97   See A/HRC/11/31, para. 14. 63