UN Geneva - Multimedia Newsroom : OHCHR - Press Conference: Chief of OPT Office

Good morning everyone.

I think we we can start with the the press conference this morning.

Our office has published a report on 6 emblematic attacks by the Israeli Defence Forces in Gaza last year that led to **** numbers of civilian fatalities and widespread destruction of civilian objects.

These attacks raise serious concerns under the laws of war with respect to the principles of distinction, proportionality and precautions in attack.

The report details 6 emblematic attacks involving the suspected use of GBU 30 ones or 2000 LB bombs, GBU 32 1000 LB bombs and GBU 30 nines 250 LB bombs from the 9th of October to the 2nd of December 2023 on residential buildings, a school, refugee camps and a market.

Such bombs are mostly used to penetrate through several floors of concrete and can completely collapse tall structures.

Given how densely populated the areas targeted were, the use of an explosive weapon with such wide area effects is highly likely to amount to a prohibited indiscriminate attack, the report finds.

The effects of such weapons in these areas cannot be limited as required by international law, resulting in military objects, civilians and civilian objects being struck without distinction, it adds.

The report concludes that these Israeli strikes indicate that the IDF may have repeatedly violated fundamental fundamental principles of the laws of war.

In this connection, it notes that unlawful targeting, when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population in line with the state or organisational policy, may also implicate the Commission of crimes against humanity.

Israel's choices of methods and means of conducting hostilities in Gaza since the 7th of October, including through the use of the extensive use of explosive weapons with wide area effects in densely populated areas, have failed to ensure that they effectively distinguish between civilians and fighters.

On the 11th of November 2023, the IDF stated that since the start of their operation into Gaza, the Air Force had struck over 5000 targets to eliminate threats in real time.

By that time, the Ministry of Health in Gaza had documented the killing of 11,000 and 78 Palestinians, with another 2700 missing and about 27,490 reportedly injured.

At around the time of these attacks, an IDF spokesperson was reported to have said that while balancing accuracy with scope of damage.

Right now we're focused on what causes maximum damage, another IDF official was quoted as saying.

Hamas and the residents of Gaza are human beasts and are dealt with accordingly.

Israel has has imposed a total blockade on Gaza, he says.

No electricity and no water, just damage.

You wanted help, you will get ****, he said.

In one of the six attacks, the strikes on Ash Shujaya neighbourhood in Gaza City on the 2nd of December 2023, destruction spread across an approximate diagonal span of 130 metres.

15 buildings were destroyed and at least fourteen others were damaged.

The extent of the damage and the craters visible through verified visual evidence and satellite imagery indicates that approximately 9 gbu 30 ones were used.

Our office received information that at least 60 people were killed.

The report also states that in five of the attacks no warning was issued, raising concerns with respect to violations of the principle of precaution in attack to protect civilians.

In three of the strikes, the IDF asserted it had targeted individuals connected to the attacks on Israel on the 7th and 8th of October 2023.

As the report sets out, however, the mere presence of one commander or even several fighters, or of several distinct military objectives in one area does not turn an entire neighbourhood into a military objective, as this would violate the principle of proportionality and the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks.

While the focus of the report is on Israel, it also highlights that Palestinian armed groups have continued to fire indiscriminate projectiles toward Israel inconsistent with their obligations under international humanitarian law.

The report also stresses the obligation to protect civilians and civilian objects by avoiding locating military objectives in or near densely populated areas.

The **** Commissioner calls on Israel to make public detailed findings on these incidents.

It should also ensure thorough and independent investigations into these and all other similar incidents, with a view to identifying those responsible for violations, holding them to account and to ensuring all victims rights to truth, justice and reparations.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jeremy.

We'll now pass the floor to the head of our office for the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Ajit Sangay, who has just returned from Gaza, and then we'll take questions.

Ajit, over to you, please.

Thank you, Ravina.

Thank you, colleagues.

Colleagues, Good morning.

I've just returned from Gaza.

I was there from 13th to 18th June during which I visited several locations including Communists Alma Wasi in Rafa and Deral Bala.

I visited Gaza in my capacity as the Protection Coordinator in humanitarian response.

The sounds of bombs, guns, drones are constant.

The sound of war is non-stop day and night.

In my 22 years of work at the UN, including in many conflict and post conflict situations, I've never seen such challenges for the UN and human rights and humanitarian aid partners to operate.

The destruction is unimaginable.

The landscape of Kan Yunis, for instance, has been changed.

It's full of completely and partially destroyed buildings, infrastructure.

People I met told me how they have moved ten times.

They're exhausted, they're barely surviving.

There are camps everywhere.

Everyone is worried not only about the here and now, but also about what next.

All of them not only don't have a Plan B, they don't have a plan A.

They don't know what to do.

They're simply living day-to-day.

The only question they have is when is when this will all end.

There is a real sense of helplessness and when you move 10 times your community support networks fall apart.

Even so, there are organisations that are still trying to provide support and protection services in this impossible situation to the most vulnerable.

For instance, unaccompanied children, victims of gender based violence, people with disabilities, individuals who've lost their entire families.

Dera Bala was already densely populated before people fled here on Mass to escape the carnage of Rafa and the North.

Now people are living on top of one another.

At one Undra school I visited, there were 14,000 people there.

They have just 25 toilets.

It's unimaginable.

I met doctors at Al Aqsa Hospital who described the situation as dire, beyond the killing wrought by the bombs and guns.

They talk about waterborne diseases, scabies and other diseases.

The hospitals are packed to overflowing and the smell is unbearable.

In most parts of Gaza you see garbage everywhere for hundreds and hundreds of metres.

Sewage is spilling into tents.

There is no clean water.

I fear a significant number will die from illness.

If the bombs don't ****, disease will.

The psychosocial impact of this frightening is frightening.

The fabric of society has been ripped apart.

As the **** Commissioner has repeatedly said, the hostages must be released.

The binding decisions of the Security Council and of the International Court of Justice must be respected.

And thus there must be ceasefire now, beyond the humanitarian catastrophe.

Our office has also been assessing Israel choices of methods and means of conducting hostilities.

Today's report looks at the extensive use of explosive weapons with wide area effects in densely populated areas and how they have failed to ensure that they effectively distinguish between civilians and fighters.

The report details a pattern of attacks using heavy bombs in densely populated areas.

This raises serious concerns under the laws of war with respect to the principles of distinction, proportionality and precautions in the attack.

International humanitarian law lays out the very clear of obligations of parties to armed conflicts that make protection of civilians a priority.

It's now eight months since the first of these extremely serious incidents occurred, yet still there is no clarity as to what happened or steps towards accountability.

Thank you.

Thanks very much, Ajit.

We will take questions in the room first, but I understand there is a technical issue with the video in the room.

It's working fine on the webcast and online.

So we'll just take a very brief technical pause and then come to the questions.

Apologies for that.

If the webcast is working fine and it's just about the room, then.

Apologies for that.

It's, it's a, it's a problem in the room.

Are there any questions in the room before we take the questions on the platform?

Yep, Given that we're not very many in the room, I think I'll take this opportunity.

Just about the methodology, why these six attacks in particular?

I understand it's because there were large number of casualties, but just wondering how that selection was made and if there's any intention to analyse other attacks to you are in the meeting now to recording in progress have more more of an evidence base for for future reports.

Thank you.

Thanks Gabriella.

Ajit.

Can you hear us, Ajit?

Oh, dear.

He seems to have the screen seems to have frozen.

We'll, we'll send him a message.

Could you send him a message, Jeremy, so that Ajit, can you hear us now?

No, We'll try to get him back online.

In the meantime, Gabriella, to to address your question, this was an assessment of 6 emblematic cases where we were able to assess the kinds of weapons that were being used and the means and the method of carrying out these attacks.

And these are, you know, attacks prior to to the end of December.

But unfortunately, we have seen a continued pattern of such attacks.

The types of weapons that were used, the means and the manner in which they were used, coupled with, you know, some of the statements that you heard from Israeli officials, give rise to very serious concerns about the compliance with international humanitarian law.

And we felt that it was important to put this report out now, especially because in the case of some of these attacks, some eight months have passed and we are yet to see investigations, credible investigations, and, you know, transparent investigations into these incidents.

As time passes, it becomes much more difficult to carry out these investigations.

So it is crucial that we call first on the Israeli authorities to take steps to ensure that proper investigations, transparent investigations are held.

And in the absence of this, and if there is continued impunity, there is a need for international action in this regard as well.

I think we have Ajit back online now.

Ajit, do you hear us now?

Did you hear the question from Reuters about why these particular 6 incidents were selected to examine?

Sure.

Look, I mean, this covers October to December.

And if you recall, this was a time of heavy civilian casualties.

We had alarm bells ringing when we saw the civilian casualties increasing.

We start with that as a reference point and look at what else has been done from a military point of view, including the nature of weapons that's been used.

So it became very clear to us that the nature of weapons that were used, especially on wide area that have wide area effect is extremely dangerous in the context of Gaza.

And we've been saying this in in several reports and statements that Gaza is an is a very densely populated area.

And in these six incidents, we had sufficient information to demonstrate the civilian casualties, both in terms of the death as well as injuries.

And where we felt that the principles of international humanitarian law, particularly precaution, distinction, proportionality were not necessarily followed.

Hence, we thought it was important to put it out so that this this stops.

Thank you.

Thanks, Moussa.

Thank you very much.

I have a question about about the source of this type of weapon.

Are they American weapons or Israeli weapons?

Thank you.

No, perhaps you need to log off and log back on.

Ajit, apologies for this.

I can hear you now.

You can hear us now.

Great.

Did you, did you hear the question?

Yeah, please.

Yes.

Look, I think, I think based on the serial number of some of these weapons, it is possible to identify where these weapons are manufactured.

So at this point in time, I will leave it there.

We do know a number of countries also provide weapons to Israel.

So I would say it is important for us to look at the the serial numbers of these weapons and and say where it's coming from.

If I may just add as well with respect to third states.

Providing weapons, as Ajit has said, I don't think we can categorically say where, where the weapons came from until you actually get that serial number.

But when it comes to international law, and particularly under common article one of the Geneva Conventions that there is a crucial element to this and it's it's to respect and ensure respect for the conventions.

So all states have obligations under international law applicable to the transfer of weapons.

So it's, it's really quite clear under the Geneva Conventions that that is the case.

Thanks.

We'll go to the platform now.

We have Yuri from Rio University, please.

Yes, thank you, Ravina.

Good morning and thank you for this briefing.

My question is in regards to the words that you use in the report and during the presentation.

You take a lot of precautions in your remarks regarding Israel.

You are using terms like cooled maybe seems why such precautions on bombings that you have never less analysized.

This is like you are not accusing Israel of the nation.

It seems that maybe they have why this terminology think thanks Yuri.

I'll I'll give the floor to Ajit first and then we can supplement.

Thank you Yuri and and thanks Ravina.

We we mostly ******* language, not just in the case of Israel, but in in most other circumstances and situations as well.

And I've worked in a number of other conflict and post conflict cases.

So it's not specific to Israel.

We do want to ensure that we give national investigations a chance to fully go in depth do further investigation.

For instance, in our report we say that five of the incidents that we have talked about Israel as open fact finding, you know, initiatives in our belief that's not sufficient.

That's a good start, but you need to go further and they have to open an independent investigation.

So there is that possibility of gathering further information and and investigation as well.

But we're also not a court of law.

So we do leave some of those clear categorization of of crimes to the court of law.

So that's where I'll stop.

Thanks.

Thanks, Yuri.

And I think, you know, what you will see in the report is that we have quite clear findings based on the facts that we were able to gather and the analysis that we were able to do.

And we have found that, you know, in these cases there are indications that statistics suggest that Israel has failed to ensure that they effectively distinguish distinguish between civilians and combatants.

We have seen concerns about patterns of systemic violations of the principles of necessity, distinction, proportionality and precaution in attack.

It sets out very clearly that Israel appears to have taken an expansive view of, of their approach of the, of the, the kind of means and methods of warfare that they are using.

All of these raise very serious concerns about compliance with international humanitarian law.

As Ajit said, we are not a court of law.

So it is up to a competent judicial body to establish conclusively whether this amounts to a particular international crime.

And there is, of course, engagement by various international bodies currently on this situation.

We have a question as well from and yes of AFP, please.

Yes, hi everybody.

Thank you for taking my question.

In fact, it's a few ones.

First one, you just say that the report is on Israel.

Could you explain why and does it mean that you plan to do a separate report on what you mentioned the Palestinian armed groups firing indiscriminate projectiles toward Israel and then on the attacks?

Sorry, I didn't listen all the the question of Reuters and the answer of of Ravina.

Why specifically did you choose six attacks?

How much do you think they are globally?

And specifically why you didn't decide to investigate the attack on 17th October on the Ali Arab Hospital which did hundreds of of deaths?

Is it because you you so that it wasn't an Israeli attack?

Thank you.

Thanks, Anya.

So over to Ajit first.

Yeah, thank you.

Just to say that yes, this is a report that focuses quite heavily on Israel, mainly because that the the weapons that are being used are by Israel.

This is the these weapons are not in possession of the Palestinian armed group, for instance, and these weapons have caused severe civilian casualties.

So the focus was on drawing attention to the heavy civilian casualties in Gaza at that point in time between October and December.

Similar kind of weapons don't exist with the Palestinian armed groups and even the missiles that are fired.

And it is absolutely unacceptable.

And it is also a crime have not caused significant killing since, you know, since the since during the war due to the firing of missiles.

So the, the focus is quite limited now on the, the firing of missiles.

In every report that the officers produced, whether it is the **** Commissioner's report or local ones, we have constantly highlighted that.

And that is also a war crime considering it is indiscriminate by by nature.

The second question, I've already answered why we focused on these six particular incidents.

On your question, the 17th of October, I would say the reason why we focused on these 6 is because we had a lot more information and we were quite confident of putting it out.

The others, and you're right, there are two or three, I mean including the Palestinian response, if you look at it, they have mentioned it.

We did not have full information to go by.

Thanks, Ajit Christian of DPA.

Thank you.

Ravina, I have a question on the principle of proportionality.

Hiding military materials or fighters in civilian areas, as you mentioned, must be avoided.

I, I understand the principles, but somehow the law is very vague and it's extremely it's, it's a difficult and distressing territory.

But how do you determine what determines whether an attack is proportional or not?

Is, is this a body count or, or how, what are the pointers as to what is proportionate, what is not?

And maybe more importantly, who determines that?

Thank you.

Thanks, Christian.

Ajit, over to you first.

Thanks a lot.

I mean, it is indeed, of course, it's a very important question.

Look, I mean the proportionality distinction as well, the principles don't disappear because there are weapons hidden in civilian areas.

And this is a point that we make in the report as well.

The principles of distinction, proportionality will continue to be there even when armed groups, for instance, hide within civilian population.

You will have to take into account the military gains that you will achieve and the loss of civilian casualties, including infrastructure and, and injuries and, and death into account.

So that's the always the, the, the balance that you need to, to to make.

So this is where we have also referred in our reports, if you go back and look at it, that in some cases the military objectives have not been mentioned at all.

In some cases there were low ranking Hamas members and there you lost about 60 civilians or so.

So you need to look at that.

What have you gained by striking at a particular set of buildings to get a low rank ranking Hamas leader or a mid level and lose hundreds of civilians?

Who makes those decisions?

I think there are a range of people involved in that from the **** from from battle commander to to others.

So they are the ones and they are, they are the ones who who have to make those decisions considering and looking into all these aspects.

And that's exactly why I think in in the press statement that we read out, we also talked a little bit about some of the statements where that were made by **** level officials, which gives an intention or indication that some of these principles were not necessarily important at that point in time.

Thanks, Ajit.

And if I may supplement Christian, just to referring back to the report, you'll see how staggering the figures are.

According to the Israeli Air Force, between the 7th of October 2023 and the 19th of February 2024 / 29,000 targets in Gaza were attacked.

The war has also witnessed the destruction of 128,904 housing units between the 7th of October and the 1st of April.

The report also makes clear that, I mean, our, our monitoring indicates that the IDF, as I said, has taken an expansive approach to targeting, as Ajit was saying, apparently considering members of the de facto civilian administration and Hamas political structures not directly participating in hostilities as well as civilian objects belonging to de facto authorities as legitimate targets.

Now, this is in violation of the principle of distinction under IHL.

The presence of Palestinian armed groups within the civilian population does not deprive the population in in the Gaza Strip of its civilian character.

That is very important to point out.

Sorry, John Zaracostis.

Yes, good morning.

I presume you can hear me there.

Hello.

Yes.

Oh, good.

John, please go ahead.

Hi.

Yes, I was just interested if you could elaborate a bit reference to compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law.

Can can you elaborate a little bit more and how does this dovetail with the Arms Trade Treaty, especially if the country concern is not a signatory?

And secondly, given the nature of the bombs and and the size of the detonations, do you have data on the kind of injuries that have been documented, for instance, say how buildings are collapsing?

Do you have a **** number of amputations, for example?

And what did your data from the injured people show for these six incidents?

Thank you.

Thanks, John Ajit.

Thanks.

On the compliance of IHL and human rights law, I mean, this is the fundamental findings of the report or the fundamental reason why we are put out.

We believe that the principles of IHL have not been followed by using this wide range, wide, wide impact bombs and particularly on distinction, precaution, proportionality, as well as military necessity.

That's exactly the, the, the, the reason why we put this report out.

And then the same with human rights.

I think you mean if you look at look at it from a right to life perspective or any other rights in in Gaza at this point in time, we see a massive violation of that nature as well.

We know the injuries have been massive more generally, but also in these six incidents, amputations have been significant limbs, you know, injuries to other parts of the bodies, so on and so forth.

I cannot give you the exact number of injuries in this specific, in these six specific incidents.

If you look at the report as well, we do mention OHCHR verified casualties as well.

So some of these things will take a bit of time.

Thanks over to Jeremy on the arms trade question.

So when it comes to the Arms Trade Treaty, John, you write the, as you know, the the US, the Trump administration unsigned that a number of years ago.

But the obligations, as I mentioned earlier, under the under the genetic convention still apply that those are set in stone.

Nothing changes.

And as you will recall, a number of states have already suspended their actions with respect to supplying weapons, arms, military hardware.

I recall the Netherlands, I think it was earlier this year, amongst others.

So yes, let's let's there is the arms trains trade treaty.

You're absolutely right, but there are other treaties as well.

And let's go back to the the bedrock Treaty of of them all, and that is the Geneva Conventions.

Thanks, Jeremy.

Jamie Keaton AP Thanks, Ravina.

Mr Sanke, I just wanted to, I've seen an Israeli response to the background note, I guess that was circulated before the release of this report.

And they mentioned in there that OHCHR actually doesn't have full information about the circumstances of these military operations and they accuse you of BI or they accuse OHCHR of bias in this report.

What do you say to that?

I think it's unfortunate, but at the same time what I can say is, look, we have experts in our office, in our team, including military advisors for we have looked at satellite pictures.

We have consulted military advisors outside the office to get more than one opinion.

We're quite solid in our analysis and we are sure of what I mean to the extent possible, we are sure of what we have put out.

So in that sense, you know, we're quite confident.

Bias, it's something we've heard before.

Look, we are an independent office.

We have been doing monitoring and reporting on human rights violations for many years now.

The fact that there are over 37,000 civilians killed in in Gaza can't be taken away, most of them civilians and women and children.

The fact that these bombs are being used is also something that can't be taken away.

And the fact that these are wide area effective, you know, effective bombs are also is something that that can't be taken away.

It's interesting and encouraging to start with the to see Israel has initiated fact finding on five of the six incidents that we have referred to.

But we believe they have to go further and do a full investigation.

And an investigation by the Military Advocate General itself is not sufficient.

And this is a problem that we've seen before and we have constantly pointed out that it has to be independent from the Military Advocate General because the Military Advocate General is also providing advice to the Israeli Defence Force.

SO1 cannot be a judge in his own case.

Thanks, Ajit.

We'll go to Nick 1st.

And then there's a follow up from Christian of DPA, Nick *******.

Bruce of the New York Times, please.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah.

I, I mean, your report says, you know, 29,000 airstrikes and you've picked 6, which you say are emblematic.

To call them emblematic, you must have done more detailed analysis of, of, of a wide number of other strikes.

And I just wonder if you could expand a little bit on, on, on how much detailed analysis you have been able to do and whether you have referred more than these six to the mag for investigation.

Thank you.

Thanks, Nick.

I mean, as you know, it's extremely difficult to get information on anything that's happening in Gaza.

So we have looked into a number of incidents of similar nature, including some of the ones that were mentioned today, 17th of October, the ones referred by Palestinians in their response to us.

But where we did not have sufficient information, we simply had to drop it.

And this goes back to also the bias allegation that Israel mentioned.

We could, for instance, have gone further and we did not because we were not satisfied with it.

So we do believe that we put out things that we are solid from our end.

On the question of have we shared further information with the military Advocate General on other issues or on this?

No, I can say that quite clearly, at least from the from the the field office OSCHROPT.

We have not shared on, on, on these incidents with MAG, but the report is out there and I'm pretty sure the Israelis have shared that entire report with them.

Thanks.

Thanks, Christian.

Yes, thank you, Ravina.

I'm just coming back to the principles of proportionality and so on.

If it's left to the battle commanders to decide that, they obviously come to very different conclusions.

Than you do, and they have in the past other pointers as to what is proportional and what is not.

Against what kind of principle do they have to determine whether whether that attack is in order or not?

Yeah, maybe you can be a bit more concrete on this one.

Thanks, Christina.

So let me let me say this that yes, it is the I mean my response was that it is the battle commander's responsibility at that point in time or you know, a range of others in the hierarchy, but it doesn't mean others cannot assess whether that was right or wrong.

And that's exactly what we are trying to do here.

The second point is on proportionality distinction.

Let's step, take a step back out here on the focus of this report, which is proportionality, distinction, precaution, necessity, visa vie, the kind of weapons that's being used.

Our message here is that these weapons in a densely populated area like Gaza, particularly now and in the past as well, it'll be extremely difficult if not impossible to follow those 4 principles.

So it's advisable not to use them.

Thanks.

Thanks, Ajit and Christian.

Also in response to your question about what principles they need to follow, international humanitarian law, these are the laws of war.

These are the laws that battle commanders, those with command responsibility, the soldiers on the ground.

Everyone is bound by the laws of war.

I don't see any further questions in the room or on the platform.

So thanks very much, everyone.

Apologies for the technical problems and thanks very much to Ajit for participating today.

Thanks.

Bye.

Thanks.

Thanks all.

Thank you.

Bye.

OHCHR - Press Conference: Chief of OPT Office - 19 June 2024