of the state.xxxvii Information collected by BROUK indicates an extensive ULA-AA presence, particularly in Buthidaung, but also in Maungdaw, Rathedaung, Kyauktaw, Pauktaw, Mrauk-U and Minbya. Recent tensions between the AA and the Tatmadaw appear to be caused by the military’s recent attempts to re-exert administrative control by tightening security checkpoints, conducting raids on villages and arresting those suspected of having ties to the AA, including some Rohingya. Rohingya communities are trapped in the middle of the power struggle between the Arakan Army and the Tatmadaw. One Rohingya leader described his community as being treated like a ‘football’, kicked by both sides. In many areas under ULA-AA control, Rohingya Muslims have been appointed as village administrators and in other functions of their apparatus. Some communities have reported better treatment under the ULA-AA than the SAC.xxxviii However, BROUK has documented many cases of human rights abuses by the AA against Rohingya communities over the past six months. Rohingya communities have expressed abject fear over possible reprisals by the AA for speaking out about abuses they have experienced. Information which might identify specific incidents, locations or communities is therefore withheld to protect their security but is on file with BROUK. In Buthidaung township, five separate incidents of abduction and arbitrary detention of multiple Rohingya men by the AA have been documented by BROUK since late 2021. In some cases, this was for the purposes of extortion and in other cases the AA has exacted forced labour from detainees. BROUK has documented a pattern of ill-treatment amounting to torture, including brutal beatings. The ULA-AA’s administrative control in Buthidaung township currently extends to interfering with the humanitarian operations of UN agencies, NGOs and INGOs by demanding detailed information from them about their field visits. In at least one incident in March, the AA seized control of food aid intended for distribution to a Rohingya community from an NGO. In Maungdaw township, Rohingya communities described how the AA targets wealthy Rohingya men for abduction and extortion purposes. Rohingya communities in the area live in fear of abduction and arbitrary detention at the hands of the AA. In Kyauktaw township, Rohingya communities trapped between the SAC and the AA face demands to supply both sides with rice. The junta imposed additional movement restrictions on Rohingya communities in the area, further restricting their access to livelihoods, while the AA has made repeated arbitrary taxation demands. Rohingya communities in the area report facing food shortages as a result of these combined abuses. In Minbya township, the AA burned bundles of paddy sheaf belonging to a Rohingya community in retribution after they resisted demands to supply the AA with rice. Such abuses by the Arakan Army compound the hardships already faced by Rohingya communities in Rakhine State due to the difficult conditions of life inflicted on them by the military junta. Analysis of breaches of the ICJ’s provisional measures by the Myanmar junta In its September 2019 report, the UNFFM found that the eight common risk factors for atrocity crimes and two specific risk factors for genocide set out by the UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect were all present in Myanmar.xxxix The two specific risk factors for genocide are ‘intergroup tensions or patterns of discrimination against protected groups’ and ‘signs of an intent to destroy in whole or in part a protected group’. The following indicators of these two risk factors for ongoing genocidal acts are particularly relevant in the current context: 1. History of atrocity crimes committed with impunity against protected groups. 2. Past or present serious tensions... with the State, with regards to access to rights and resources...participation in decision making processes... expressions of group identity or to perceptions about the targeted group. 3. Denial of the existence of protected groups or of recognition of elements of their identity. 4. Past or present serious discriminatory, segregational, restrictive or exclusionary practices, policies or legislation against protected groups. 5. Targeted physical elimination, rapid or gradual, of members of a protected group, including only selected parts of it, which could bring about the destruction of the group. 6