A/HRC/15/50 where Israel admitted it had made an operational error leading to the deaths of 23 civilians – PCHR filed the compensation form on 11 February 2009 and a criminal petition on 18 May 2009, only to receive a formal letter acknowledging receipt of its petition on 13 September 2009 and requesting a power of attorney (which PCHR had already filed). PCHR has received no further information on the progress of this compensation claim.72 Furthermore, Palestinian witnesses in Gaza are not always granted a permit to travel out of Gaza and so cannot reach courts in Israel, particularly since the closure of the Gaza Strip in June 2007.73 Consequently, access to justice is rarely guaranteed in practice to Palestinian complainants. 59. The experience of victims and witnesses when giving testimony at the border and in accessing Israeli justice more broadly helps to explain why Palestinians have little confidence in the Israeli investigations. The Committee interviewed 28 witnesses, of whom 19 had given evidence at the Erez border. Witnesses had had to wait long hours at the border. One of the witnesses in the al-Samouni case reported having to wait 13 hours and being refused access to sanitary facilities for hours, finally being allowed to use a toilet, but only in the company of soldiers.74 Another witness to the Halawa incident had to wait four hours without water or food; the witness was forced to wait an hour and a half to use a toilet.75 Another person related to the Abd Rabbo incident had to wait six hours at the border and was sent home without being interviewed.76 60. In the view of the Palestinians residing in Gaza, the Israeli military justice system is simply the extension of the same military system that organized and carried out “Operation Cast Lead”. Most distrust its ability to deliver justice. For this reason, many potential witnesses declined to appear in Erez. Perhaps this is not surprising since victims of military operations naturally perceive a deep bias and predisposition towards self-preservation and national interests among those representing the adversary State. However, in the interests of performing effective and impartial investigations, the Committee emphasizes the importance of treating all victims and witnesses, whether Israeli or Palestinian, with dignity and courtesy. Allegations not investigated 61. The information available suggests that Israel has not investigated all the allegations of serious violations of IHL and IHRL set out in the FFM report. 62. First, Israel has not conducted investigations into the allegations of human rights violations with respect to its actions in the West Bank at the time of the military operations in Gaza.77 The allegations of violations of the right to life, as well as claims of torture and unlawful conditions of detention, give rise to the duty to investigate under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture. There is no evidence that Israel has met this duty. 63. Furthermore, the information available suggests that Israel has not conducted a general review of the military doctrine regarding legitimate military targets. The FactFinding Mission rejected the Israeli viewpoint that the entire governmental infrastructure in 72 73 74 75 76 77 Discussions with PCHR, Gaza, 15 August 2010. PCHR, “Memorandum for the United Nations Committee of Experts”, annex I, August 2010. Interviews, Gaza, 15 August 2010. Interviews, Gaza, 16 August 2010. Interviews, Gaza, 15 August 2010. A/HRC/12/48, paras. 1394–1404 (use of force during demonstrations in the West Bank); paras. 1411– 1418 (violence by settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank). 17