A/HRC/16/71 36. On 26 December 2009,43 at approximately 3.00 a.m., IDF conducted a large-scale operation in Nablus, reportedly seeking to arrest men suspected in the killing of an Israeli settler two days earlier. In the old city, IDF soldiers broke down the doors of the houses of Nader “Raed” al-Surakji and Ghassan Abu Sharkh, calling to them to come out. Both complied and when they were in sight of the soldiers, they were shot several times. In both cases, the victims were unarmed. In the case of Nader “Raed” al-Surakji, after the initial shots were fired, a soldier approached Mr. Surakji who was laying on the ground, wounded or already dead, and reportedly shot him several times at point-blank range. 37. Early morning on 17 September, several dozen IDF soldiers entered the Nur Shams refugee camp and simultaneously searched a dozen houses. Eyad As’ad Ahmad AbuShelbayeh was killed and 11 other Palestinians were detained. According to information collected by OHCHR, soldiers raided Mr. Abu-Shelbayeh’s house during the night, and he was shot and killed near his bed. He was unarmed. 38. According to information gathered, in both these as in other cases, IDF exercised complete control over the area during the operation. The operations targeted specific houses and had the characteristics of law enforcement operations. Thus, IDF was bound to act in conformity with article 6 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. Further, limitations exist with regard to the conduct of soldiers regardless of the circumstances under which the operations take place. Foremost is the prohibition on targeting civilians. Even when pursuing a legitimate military target, the means that may be used are not unlimited.44 It can be noted that the limitation of means in the course of military operations is supported by the jurisprudence of the Israeli High Court.45 39. As in all cases in which there are allegations of violations of human rights or international humanitarian law, the Government of Israel has the obligation to conduct an independent, effective and thorough investigation of such incidents. This obligation is also not without support from the Israeli High Court. In this instance, the Court decided that all cases where civilians who are suspected of having taken direct part in hostilities are targeted must be the object of a thorough, independent investigation, and that such investigations may be subject to judicial review.46 OHCHR is not aware of any investigations in relation to these incidents. 2. Killings by security forces in the course of daily security operations 40. Unarmed Palestinian civilians, who were apparently not the intended targets of a planned military or police operation, were killed in the course of routine operations by Israeli security forces in the West Bank. Three cases documented by OHCHR resulted in the death of a total of five Palestinian civilians. On 20 March, IDF was deployed to the east of Iraq Burin, as villagers had planned a demonstration there. Clashes erupted in the fields east of the village between IDF and village youths. Four or five IDF vehicles entered the 43 44 45 46 While the incident is outside the reporting period, the case is included in the light of issues pertaining to accountability which fall within the reporting period. International Committee of the Red Cross, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law (2009), pp. 80–81. The High Court stated: “a civilian taking a direct part in hostilities cannot be attacked at such time as he is doing so, if a less harmful means can be employed … Indeed, among the military means, one must choose the means whose harm to the human rights of the harmed person is smallest. Thus, if a terrorist taking a direct part in hostilities can be arrested, interrogated, and tried, those are the means which should be employed.” The Public Committee against Torture in Israel et al. v. the Government of Israel et al., Israeli High Court, 11 December 2005, para. 40. Ibid., paras. 40 and 54. 11