Today, 21 March 2016, the High Commissioner for Human Rights presented a report reviewing the parties’ compliance with the recommendations of the 2014 UN Commission of Inquiry and 2009 UN Fact Finding Mission reports on the Gaza conflicts.
Assessing the steps taken by Israel, the Palestinian authorities and the international community to implement the recommendations, the High Commissioner notes “limited progress in investigating alleged violations of international law by all parties” and reiterated serious concerns regarding the lack of accountability for past cycles of violence. The High Commissioner further observes a deterioration in the human rights situation as recently taken measures, including the loosening of the rules governing the use of live ammunition by Israeli Security Forces, only further increased violations.
Regarding the international community, the report calls on it to ensure that respect for international law remains central in its peace initiatives. Indeed this is precisely what the EU committed to when, in its July 2015 and January 2016 Foreign Affairs Council Conclusions, it stated that “accountability is a cornerstone for peace and security in the region”. While commendable, the EU must now translate these lofty words into action. As the UN Human Rights Council moves to discuss the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, here are five steps the EU and its Member States should take:
- Endorse the UN Commission of Inquiry Report calling on all parties to implement its recommendations:At the time of its publication, the EU argued that it was “premature to make a judgement” on the report claiming that it would first need to examine its recommendations. Almost ten months after its publication, the EU must call on all parties to adopt its recommendations.
- Support the establishment of a UN mechanism to monitor and assess the effectiveness of steps taken by the parties to ensure accountability:This should assess parties’ ongoing domestic investigations, reviews and changes of policies governing military operations in compliance with international law. This mechanism would be similar to the one EU Member States unanimously supported on South Sudan in July 2015. In addition the mechanism should also identify the legal implications of parties’ non-compliance with the recommendations of the reports.
- Call on all parties to cooperate with, and grant access to all UN Human Rights Mechanisms and ICC procedures:In his recent resignation, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory stressed that Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN human rights mechanisms continues to frustrate efforts to ensure human rights and accountability. To allow effective monitoring and reporting, the EU must call for full access and cooperation with UN Human Rights Mechanisms. In line with its Council Decision on the ICC, the EU should call on all parties to cooperate with the ICC preliminary examination, including with requests for information.
- Recall the recommendations of the 2014 UN Commission of Inquiry and 2009 Fact Finding Mission reports in upcoming Universal Periodic Reviews and other UN Human Rights Mechanisms:Israel’s Universal Periodic Review will take place in October 2017. EU Member States should seize this opportunity to review and recall the reports’ recommendations.
- Monitor and raise compliance of parties’ domestic investigations with international law standards in its bilateral relations:Both parties maintain an appalling track record in holding wrongdoers accountable. Israel continues to rely on flawed mechanisms while the Palestinian National Investigations Committee has made little progress in investigating violations. Based on the criteria outlined in the EU complementarity toolkit for “bridging the gap between international and national justice,” the EU should scrutinise both parties’ compliance with international standards in upcoming dialogues, notably the upcoming human rights dialogues and association council meetings. The EU should raise the limited scope of ongoing investigations, the conflict of interest stemming from Israel’s Military Advocate General’s dual role, the lack of indictments, other than for looting, and the failure to review and make changes to the rules of engagement and operational policies to comply with international law standards.