A/HRC/12/48 page 190 860. The Mission finds the version of events offered so far by Israel to be unsatisfactory. The details given are not sufficient to clarify the nature of the very serious error that has been made, if it was an error. In so far as any explanation has been given, it appears to lack coherence and raises more questions than it answers. 4. Legal findings 861. In the absence of information necessary to determine the precise circumstances of the incident, the Mission can make no findings on possible violations of international humanitarian law or international criminal law. If indeed a mistake was made and the intention was to destroy a house nearby rather than to kill the al-Daya family, there could not be said to be a case of wilful killing as the requisite degree of criminal intent would not have been established on the part of the individuals responsible.472 862. However, the issue of State responsibility remains. The International Law Commission’s articles on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts473 are silent on whether such a mistake relieves a State of its international responsibility for the commission of an internationally wrongful act and the requirement of fault in international law is controversial. In a commentary on the articles, Crawford and Olleson consider that “if a State deliberately carries out some specific act, there is less room for it to argue that the harmful consequences were unintended and should be disregarded. Everything depends on the specific context and on the content and interpretation of the obligation said to have been breached”.474 863. The obligation breached in this case is the duty to ensure the general protection of the civilian population against the dangers arising from military operations, as reflected in article 51 (1) of Additional Protocol I. 864. The firing of the projectile was a deliberate act in so far as it was planned, by Israel’s admission, to strike the al-Daya house. The fact that target selection had gone wrong at the planning stage does not strip the act of its deliberate character. The consequences may have been unintended; the act was deliberate. Taken together with further facts (such as the failure to deliver an effective warning) and the nature of the “intransgressible obligation” to protect civilian life, the Mission considers that, even if a fault element is required, the available information demonstrates a substantial failure of due diligence on the part of Israel. As such, the Mission considers Israel to be liable for the consequences of this wrongful act. 865. The Mission finds that Israel’s lack of due diligence in this case also constitutes a violation of the right to life as set out in article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Israel is a party. The right to life includes the negative obligation to respect life and the positive obligation to protect life. The Human Rights Committee has stated that States parties should take measures not only to prevent and punish deprivation by criminal 472 See, for example, article 32 of the Rome Statute. 473 Annexed to General Assembly resolution 56/83. J. Crawford and S. Olleson, “The nature and forms of international responsibility”, in International Law, M. Evans, ed. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003). 474