56 INTERNATIONAL LEGAL PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ARMED CONFLICT not mutually exclusive.”78 The Committee has taken similar positions in numerous concluding observations on specific country situations.79 The complementary application of the two legal regimes is known as concurrent application or dual applicability. In the context of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, it means that both legal regimes are applicable in times of armed conflict. As will be explained later, this concurrent application should be seen in the context of the principle of lex specialis as well as in the context of the human rights derogations procedure referred to above. The following examples reflect international recognition of concurrent application:  The Convention on the Rights of the Child is an example of a treaty that contains explicit provisions applicable to both peace and war situations. The Convention, which is essentially an international human rights treaty, explicitly refers to situations of armed conflict, noting that “States Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for rules of international humanitarian law applicable to them in armed conflicts which are relevant to the child” (art. 38.1).80 Furthermore, its Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict defines legally binding obligations that must specifically be applied both in peace time and during armed conflict. According to its article 1, “States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that members of their armed forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do not take a direct part in hostilities.”81 In a case opposing the Democratic Republic   General comment No. 31 (2004), para. 11.   For instance, the Committee “notes with concern the restrictive interpretation made by the State party of its obligations under the Covenant, as a result in particular of […] its position that the Covenant does not apply […] in time of war, despite the contrary opinions and established jurisprudence of the Committee and the International Court of Justice […]. The State party should review its approach and interpret the Covenant in good faith, in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context, including subsequent practice, and in the light of its object and purpose. The State party should in particular (a) acknowledge the applicability of the Covenant […] in time of war […]” (CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev.1, para. 10). 80   See also article 38.4. 81   See also article 6. 78 79