A/HRC/39/43 Annex III Joint Incidents Assessment Team 1. The Experts reviewed the summaries of 71 incidents investigated by the Joint Incidents Assessment Team (JIAT), an investigative body established by the coalition in response to allegations of air strikes hitting or affecting civilians or civilian objects. All but one referred to cases brought to the attention of JIAT by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) or civil society organizations. 2. In assessing the findings, consideration was given to the fact that military commanders are often required to make decisions in the “fog of war”; that a number of accidents are unavoidable, and that commanders may not have the same information that is available to those reviewing an incident in hindsight. The Experts accepted that the publicly available information may only constitute summaries of JIAT findings. They, nonetheless, expressed serious concerns as the summaries lacked details of legal analyses undertaken, and rarely addressed reports of civilian casualties. 3. The Experts requested JIAT to provide information about its terms of reference, appointments process, and reporting structure. It has received no response. However, the Experts received reliable information suggesting that at times, JIAT findings were substantially altered by the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Experts also sought information about JIAT rules of procedure and the coalition’s process for determining whether to implement JIAT recommendations, and has received no response. Case Selection 4. The Experts requested JIAT to provide information on the case selection process. No response was received. JIAT has investigated certain prominent cases but appears to have chosen to investigate a majority of cases where very few civilian casualties or little damage to protected objects occurred. For example, JIAT investigated damage to a hospital on 7 July 2015, which the United Nations Panel of Experts 1 alleged was the result of collateral damage on a separate target. It does not appear to have investigated allegations in the same section of the report of direct strikes at the end of August 2015 on Maran Health Center in Sa’dah and on 3 September 2015 on Rizah Hospital, also in Sa’dah, which destroyed those facilities entirely. 5. In some instances, JIAT also appears to have opted to review cases where the organization alleging the unlawful airstrike noted the presence of a possible military objective at the strike site rather than cases in which no such suspicions were raised. For example, an international organization report documenting the 29 October 2016 attack on the al-Zaydiya security administration building north of the city of Hodeida noted the presence of Houthi/Saleh armed forces at the detention facility. JIAT appears not to have investigated other alleged incidents in the same report that make no such reference to any military presence at the sites attacked. 6. The JIAT has not responded to additional Experts’ questions about its methodology or access to After Mission Damage reports. Nor has it explained procedures for making or receiving complaints. The cases 7. JIAT has generally justified strikes on apparent civilians or civilian objects on the following three grounds: 1) accident or technical fault; 2) the coalition was not responsible for the attack; and 3) the object was a military objective. 1 34 The Security Council Committee on sanctions is supported by the Panel of Experts established pursuant to resolutions 2140 (2014) and 2216 (2015).