In contrast with human rights law, IHL condones or at least allows the killing and injuring of human beings not even directly participating in an armed conflict – “civilian victims of lawful collateral damage.” (Meron, 2000:240) Besides that, deprivation of personal freedoms without a judgement, wide-scale restrictions of freedom of expression and assembly is possible (Meron, 2000:240). All this is acceptable during armed conflict as long as “the rules of the game” are followed. The law of armed conflict (LOAC) regulates the dimensions of a struggle of life and death between opponents who are deemed equivalent as they are mainly both states (Meron, 2000:240). International Human Rights Law (IHRL) however, applies in the relationship between unequal parties (states and individuals), and its aim is to protect the physical integrity and human dignity (Meron, 2000:240). It becomes apparent that the two regimes IHL and IHRL are different, and the ‘humanization’ of the law of war can, in some way, be considered a contradiction in terms. Two overarching principles are held in the balance: military necessity and humanity.