A/HRC/12/48 page 130 could have responded may have had legitimate reasons not to do so. The issuance of warning is one measure that should be taken wherever possible. The fact that a warning was issued does not, however, relieve a commander or his subordinates from taking all other feasible measures to distinguish between civilians and combatants.362 523. Israeli armed forces had created the circumstances in which civilians could not reasonably believe the city centres were safe. An effective warning had to make clear why, even in those circumstances, it was better for civilians to leave than to stay in their homes. 5. Israel’s review 524. According to press reports,363 military sources, including representatives from the military prosecution's international law department, have agreed that more specific information, such as more accurate timetables for strikes to be carried out and escape routes, should be given in warnings. The press report goes on to say: “Fliers distributed by the IDF from now on will also be more detailed in order to make it clear to civilians that their lives are in danger and give them a chance to flee. It was also determined in the hearing that the military made multiple efforts to prevent civilian casualties in January's offensive.” 525. The Mission cannot confirm if such press reports are accurate but notes two things. Firstly, any improvements in practice in this regard are to be welcomed. Secondly, the changes, if reported correctly, appear to address the matters that have been touched on in this section. Those were matters that could not be considered in any way as unforeseeable in the circumstances at the time the warnings were in fact issued. While improvements are welcome in this case, it would also appear to indicate that circumstances almost certainly permitted much better warnings to be given than was the case. 6. Legal findings 526. Chapter IV of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions addresses the issue of precautionary measures that must be taken. Article 57 (1) states that “in the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.” 527. Article 57 (2) (c) requires that “effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.” 528. The Mission regards both these provisions to be norms of customary international law.364 In addition, Israel appears to consider itself bound by the obligation to provide effective warnings under customary law. Note in particular the testimony of Prof. Michael Newton to the Mission at the Geneva public hearings on 7 July 2009. See http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/archive.asp?go=090707. 362 363 See Ynetnews, “IDF to give better warnings before attacks”, 29 September 2007. According to ICRC, article 57 (1) codifies the principle of precautions in attack and article 57 (2) (c) is a rule of customary international law applicable to international and non-international armed conflict. Customary International Humanitarian Law…, pp. 51 and 62. 364