Human Rights Council
Fifteenth session
Agenda item 7
Human Rights situation in Palestine and other Occupied Arab territories
Report of the international fact-finding mission to investigate violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, resulting from the Israeli attacks on the flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian assistance
I. Introduction
A. Mandate
1. On 2 June 2010 the Human Rights Council, by resolution 14/1, decided “to dispatch an independent international fact-finding mission to investigate violations of international law, including international humanitarian law and human rights law, resulting from the Israeli attacks on the flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian assistance” to Gaza. The same resolution authorized the President of the Council to appoint the members of this Mission and called for the independent international fact-finding mission, hereinafter called “the Mission”, to report its findings to the fifteenth session of the Council.1
2. Seven weeks later, on 23 July 2010, the President of the Human Rights Council appointed Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., retired Judge of the International Criminal Court and former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, to be Chairman and to head the Mission. The other appointed members were Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone and Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the Board of Directors of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific and former member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
3. In accordance with common practice, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) established a secretariat to support the Mission. The experts were also assisted by external specialists in forensic pathology, military issues, firearms, the law of the sea and international humanitarian law.
4. The Mission considered that its task was directed to investigating the facts and circumstances surrounding the boarding by Israeli military personnel of a flotilla of ships bound for Gaza and to determine whether in the process violations occurred of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law.
5. The Resolution in terms directed an investigation of ‘violations’ of international law, international humanitarian and human rights law, resulting from the Israeli ‘attacks’ on the flotilla carrying humanitarian assistance. This appeared to determine that “violations” of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law had in fact occurred prior to any investigation. The Resolution also appeared to find as a fact that there were Israeli “attacks” on the flotilla of ships and that the ships were carrying humanitarian assistance.
6. The Mission did not interpret its task as proceeding on any such assumptions. It could not be determined what the position was until the Mission came to its conclusion on the facts. The same can be said of the alleged actions by the Israeli forces.
7. It was not generally contested that there was an interception by Israeli forces of a flotilla of ships and that the ships were carrying cargos of a humanitarian nature. That apart, the Mission considered that its mandate required it to ascertain the sequence of the facts and events as they occurred and to examine the reasons and justification in law, if any, for the same.
8. The Mission convened in Geneva to officially commence its work on 9 August 2010. Shortly prior thereto, on 2 August 2010, the Secretary-General of the United Nations announced “the setting-up of a Panel of Inquiry on the flotilla incident of 31 May”. The Secretary-General, without indicating what specific area of inquiry the Panel was to undertake, expressed the hope that the panel “will fulfil its mandate based on the Presidential Statement of the Security Council”.
9. The Panel of Inquiry was given the mandate to receive and review the reports of the national investigations with the view to recommending ways of avoiding similar incidents in the future”.2
10. Both Israel and Turkey announced the setting-up of national inquiries, on 15 July 2010 10 August 2010 respectively.
11. In the opinion of the Mission, the remit of the Panel appointed by the Secretary General is quite different and distinct from that of the Mission as it ultimate goal is to “positively affect the relationship between Turkey and Israel, as well as the overall situation in the Middle East.”3
12. At the time of writing this report, the Mission was made aware of sittings of the Israeli inquiry under Judge Turkel.4 Both from the internet and other sources, the Mission was able to secure transcripts of some of the evidence given by witness to that enquiry. It appears that evidence was given partly in closed sessions, the transcripts of which have not been made available to the Mission. As far as the Mission is aware, the inquiry announced by the Government of Turkey submitted a preliminary report to the Secretary-General’s Panel on 1 September 2010.
13. The Mission decided that its task required it to seek the cooperation of as wide a cross section of relevant interests as possible and in particular that of the Governments of Turkey and Israel. The Mission was greatly assisted by having discussions in Geneva with the Permanent Representatives of Israel, Jordan, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, as well as with the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations.
14. The Mission wishes to place on record its appreciation for the assistance provided by the Governments of Turkey and Jordan in facilitating its visit to Istanbul, Ankara and Amman and providing pertinent and relevant information in the case of Turkey at an official level.
15. The Mission also wishes to thank the Office of the United Nations Resident Coordinators and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Ankara and Amman for the cooperation provided. Particular mention is also to be made of the collaboration provided by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and the Office of the Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process (UNSCO) for briefing the Mission on the situation in the Gaza Strip.
16. The Mission expresses its profound regret that, notwithstanding a most cordial meeting on the 18 August 2010, the Permanent Representative of Israel advised in writing at the end of the meeting that the position of his government was one of non-recognition of and non-cooperation with the Mission. In the hope that this position would change before the conclusion of its work, the Mission left with the Permanent Representative a list of requests for information.5
17. Not having heard from the Permanent Representative of Israel, by letter dated 7 September 2010, the Mission wrote to the Permanent Representative renewing its request for information. The Permanent Representative replied by letter dated the 13 September 2010 requesting the Mission to delay delivering its report to the Council on the ground that it should await the report of the Commission under Judge Turkel in Israel and the Panel appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Mission replied advising the Permanent Representative that the request should be made to the Council. Regrettably to date, no information has been given to the Mission by or on behalf of the Government of Israel.
1 The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 32 to 3, with 9 abstentions. See A/HRC/ RES/14/1.
2 Daily press briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General. 02 August 2010. http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2010/db100802.doc.htm.
3 Ibid.
4 See correspondence between the Mission and the Israeli Permanent Mission on annexes.
5 See annexes.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
