diff --git a/rules/S5413/java/rule.adoc b/rules/S5413/java/rule.adoc
index 816e7f5cd2..c5edd2b527 100644
--- a/rules/S5413/java/rule.adoc
+++ b/rules/S5413/java/rule.adoc
@@ -1,67 +1,116 @@
 == Why is this an issue?
 
-When ``++List.remove()++`` is called it will shrink the list. If this is done inside the ascending loop iterating through all elements it will skip the element after the removed index.
+When `List.remove()` is called, the list shrinks, and the indices of all elements following the removed element are decremented by one.
+If this operation is performed within a loop that iterates through the elements in ascending order,
+it will cause the loop to skip the element immediately following the removed element.
 
+== How to fix it
 
-=== Noncompliant code example
+There are three ways how to fix this issue:
 
-[source,java]
+1. Replace the loop with a call to `Collection.removeIf()`. This is the preferred solution.
+2. Replace the ascending loop with a descending loop. Use this approach if the preferred solution is not possible due to side effects of the loop.
+3. Adjust the loop counter within the loop body after the call to `Collection.remove()`. **This approach is not recommended**, because it will raise an issue with rule _S127 - "for" loop stop conditions should be invariant_
+
+=== Code examples
+
+==== Noncompliant code example
+
+If the loop can be replaced with Java 8's `Collection.removeIf` method, depending on the side effects of the loop and your Java target version,
+then this is the preferred solution for this issue.
+
+[source,java,diff-id=1,diff-type=noncompliant]
 ----
 void removeFrom(List<String> list) {
-  // expected: iterate over all the elements of the list
+  // expected: iterate over all list elements
   for (int i = 0; i < list.size(); i++) {
     if (list.get(i).isEmpty()) {
-      // actual: remaining elements are shifted, so the one immediately following will be skipped
-      list.remove(i); // Noncompliant
+      list.remove(i); // Noncompliant, next element is skipped
     }
   }
 }
 ----
 
+==== Compliant solution
 
-=== Compliant solution
-
-You can either adjust the loop index to account for the change in the size of the list
-
-[source,java]
-----
-static void removeFrom(List<String> list) {
-    // expected: iterate over all the elements of the list
-    for (int i = 0; i < list.size(); i++) {
-      if (list.get(i).isEmpty()) {
-        // actual: remaining elements are shifted, so the one immediately following will be skipped
-        list.remove(i);
-        i--;
-      }
-    }
-  }
-----
-Or preferably it's probably better to rely on Java 8's ``++removeIf++`` method
-
-[source,java]
-----
- static void removeFrom(List<String> list) {
-    list.removeIf(String::isEmpty);
-  }
-----
- 
-
-
-=== Exceptions
-
-The descending loop doesn't have this issue, because the index will be correct when we loop in descending order
-
-[source,java]
+[source,java,diff-id=1,diff-type=compliant]
 ----
 void removeFrom(List<String> list) {
-  for (int i = list.size() - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
+  list.removeIf(String::isEmpty); // Compliant
+}
+----
+
+==== Noncompliant code example
+
+If this is not possible due to side effects of the loop, replace the ascending loop with a descending loop.
+Descending loops are not affected by decrementing the element indices after the removed element, because they have already been iterated.
+
+[source,java,diff-id=2,diff-type=noncompliant]
+----
+void removeFrom(List<String> list) {
+  // expected: iterate over all list elements
+  for (int i = 0; i < list.size(); i++) {
     if (list.get(i).isEmpty()) {
-      list.remove(i);
+      list.remove(i); // Noncompliant, next element is skipped
     }
   }
 }
 ----
- 
+
+==== Compliant solution
+
+[source,java,diff-id=2,diff-type=compliant]
+----
+void removeFrom(List<String> list) {
+    // expected: iterate over all list elements
+    for (int i = list.size() - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
+    if (list.get(i).isEmpty()) {
+      list.remove(i); // Compliant, elements after removed one have already been iterated
+    }
+  }
+}
+----
+
+==== Noncompliant code example
+
+Another way to solve this issue is to adjust the loop counter after the call to `Collection.remove` to account for the index decrement.
+
+[source,java,diff-id=3,diff-type=noncompliant]
+----
+void removeFrom(List<String> list) {
+  // expected: iterate over all list elements
+  for (int i = 0; i < list.size(); i++) {
+    if (list.get(i).isEmpty()) {
+      list.remove(i); // Noncompliant, next element is skipped
+    }
+  }
+}
+----
+
+==== Compliant solution
+
+**This is not recommanded** because it raises an issue with rule S127.
+
+[source,java,diff-id=3,diff-type=compliant]
+----
+void removeFrom(List<String> list) {
+  // expected: iterate over all list elements
+  for (int i = 0; i < list.size(); i++) {
+    if (list.get(i).isEmpty()) {
+      list.remove(i); // Compliant due to counter adjust in next line
+      i--; // Noncompliant with S127!
+    }
+  }
+}
+----
+
+== Resources
+
+=== Documentation
+
+* https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/Collection.html#remove(java.lang.Object)[Java SE 7 API Specification: Collection.remove]
+* https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/Collection.html#removeIf-java.util.function.Predicate-[Java SE 8 API Specification: Collection.removeIf]
+* https://sonarsource.github.io/rspec/#/rspec/S6068/java[S127 - "for" loop stop conditions should be invariant]
 
 ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]