A/HRC/13/53 7. This process is supposed to have been monitored by a body of independent experts appointed by the Human Rights Council, and, if the Council deems the results unsatisfactory, then it is to refer the report to the Security Council for transfer to the International Criminal Court for appropriate action.9 Further, the FFM report recommended that countries with laws conferring universal jurisdiction on national criminal courts pursue investigation, detention and indictment of alleged perpetrators, as appropriate.10 8. The FFM report was discussed in the Human Rights Council and resolution S-12/1 was adopted on 16 October 2009 by a vote of 25 in favour, 6 opposed, and 11 abstaining. On 15 October 2009, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights told the Human Rights Council of her support for the FFM report and its recommendations, urging action to counter impunity by investigating and prosecuting those against whom substantial evidence existed to support war crimes accusations. Significantly, the High Commissioner asserted that holding war criminals accountable should not be considered as an obstacle to a peace process, which is the position taken by leading Member States of the United Nations in response to similar allegations regarding criminal charges directed at Sudanese officials responsible for Darfur.11 On 5 November 2009, the General Assembly adopted resolution 64/10 by a vote of 144 in favour, 18 opposed, and 44 abstaining, giving Israel and Hamas three months to undertake independent, credible investigations, with provision for referral to the Security Council in the event that the parties do not carry out satisfactory selfinvestigations. The Secretary-General has been tasked with the responsibility of monitoring the process and reporting to the General Assembly as to whether there has been compliance. To date there has been no appointment of a panel of international law experts to evaluate the assessment process as recommended by the FFM. A. Criticisms of the report of the United Nations Fact-finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict 9. Israel and the United States of America both levelled heavy criticism at the report, contending that it was biased and one-sided. On a more technical level there was a suggestion that United Nations rules on fact finding were not adhered to, as Professor Chinkin, a member of the mission, had already been on record as supporting the allegations prior to her appointment.12 Justice Goldstone explained that if the mission had been a strictly judicial undertaking, then Professor Chinkin would have been disqualified, but given the framework of inquiry, the qualifications for membership were competence and objectivity in the discharge of the inquiry.13 There were a variety of highly emotional attacks on the FFM report made by top Israeli political leaders, among other persons associated with the Government of Israel. The former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations, Dore Gold, contended that the Goldstone report was the “most serious and vicious indictment of the State of Israel bearing the seal of the United Nations” since the antiZionist resolution of 1975.14 9 10 11 12 13 14 GE.10-10260 Ibid., paras. 1968–1969. Ibid., para. 1975. See statement by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights at the twelfth special session of the Human Rights Council, available at http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/ view01/6781752DD0ED2F1DC12576500047E3D3?opendocument. “Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is not self-defence, it’s a war crime”, The Sunday Times, 11 January 2009. Brandeis University Debate, 6 November 2009. A video of Justice Goldstone’s intervention is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtbHifKM6sM. “Dore Gold Illustrates UN Goldstone Report Bias Against Israel In Brandeis Debate”, Israel News 5