 So humanitarian relief is only ever a plan B. It is first and foremost the obligation of the parties to an armed conflict to provide for the basic needs of populations under their control and not to deny them goods essential for their survival. Now, what is essential for civilians has to be determined on a case-by-case basic. It's of course always the case for food, water or medical supplies but it can also be fuel, for example. So if water cannot be pumped without fuel, if hospitals cannot function without power then in that case, if the civilian population is deprived of safe water or patients cannot have life-saving treatment then fuel must also be considered a supply essential for the survival of the population. In situations of armed conflict where medical supplies are short, where food is scarce humanitarian relief can mean the difference between life and death and therefore humanitarian organizations that are impartial have a right to offer their services to carry out humanitarian activities. Now, this offer of services is of course subject to the consent of the parties concerned but this consent cannot be denied on arbitrary grounds and what this means is that the parties have to consent to the relief when the basic needs of the populations are not met. In addition, warring parties have to allow for the free movement of humanitarian relief personnel. They can restrict it for imperative military reasons but then only temporarily. So the parties to the conflict with respect to relief operations have what we call a right of control. What this means is that they can impose measures such as for instance searching consignments, defining the routes or the passages in order to make sure that the relief really reaches the civilians in need and is not being diverted. However, such controls cannot be such that they unduly delay relief operations or indeed impose such obstacles that in practice they make relief impossible.