A/HRC/5/20 page 14 c. Third, the Permanent Representative of Israel made it clear to the Mission on a number of occasions that while the position of his Government was not to cooperate with the Mission, the members of the Mission would not be barred from entering Israel. This position was reiterated in a number of comments to the media by Israeli officials; d. Fourth, the mission did not travel to Beit Hanoun as mandated because Israeli authorities failed to provide the necessary official visas. 6. Let me reiterate that the decision of the Mission to abandon attempts to travel to Beit Hanoun for want of visas was not taken lightly. The Mission was led to believe - by official and media statements - that visas would be granted. Indeed despite visas not being issued by 4 p.m. on Friday the 8th of December, the Mission continued to wait for a response until the evening of Saturday the 9th of December, when airline and other arrangements - including those for the very full schedule of planned interviews in both Israel and Gaza - were finally cancelled. Mr. President, distinguished delegates 7. It was - and remains - a matter of grave concern to us that a duly-mandated mission of this Council would be prevented from addressing a critical human rights situation due to the non-cooperation of a concerned Government in respect of issuing visas. We expressed this concern in the clearest possible terms during a press conference held in Geneva on Monday the 11th of December. 8. Once it became clear that the Mission would not be permitted to travel to Beit Hanoun via Israel on the 10th of December as planned, I and Archbishop Tutu considered the most appropriate means of giving effect to our mandate. In doing so, we took into account a number of factors, including the following: a. The events of early November 2006 in Gaza, and in Beit Hanoun in particular, required an investigation into possible serious human rights violations by Israel. This Council’s decision to dispatch the Mission to Beit Hanoun reflected its deep concern at the corroborated reports of the killing and injuring of civilians by Israeli armed forces. The information presented to the Mission during its briefings in Geneva confirmed the gravity and urgency of the situation; b. The mandate of the Mission not only explicitly required that it “travel to Beit Hanoun” but that it “assess the situation of victims” and “address the needs of survivors”. Each of these elements required that the Mission have access to victims, survivors and witnesses in Beit Hanoun and elsewhere; c. The Mission carefully investigated the possibility of assessing the situation of victims and survivors by visiting places outside Israel and Gaza where those individuals may have been removed for medical treatment. Our investigations revealed that of 51 individuals injured in the incident at Beit Hanoun, all except 6 were treated in the occupied territory of Gaza. Of those six who were removed for treatment, three were