A/HRC/10/22 page 25 88. The Representative underscores the fact that being displaced in one’s own country or country of habitual residence is a factual state that neither confers a special legal status under international law nor alters a pre-existing special status. Palestinian refugees who suffered secondary displacement inside Gaza retain all rights under international law, including the right of return, as reaffirmed by the General Assembly in its resolution 194 (III). Israel, as occupying Power, and the Palestinian Authority must address the specific assistance and protection needs of all recently displaced persons, whether they are internally displaced in the sense of the description provided by the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement or secondary displaced Palestinian refugees. H. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions 89. All killings during the Gaza conflict that violated applicable human rights and humanitarian law norms come within the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. For that reason, the major focus is on the principle of accountability. 90. According to available estimates, a total of 1,440 people were killed (see paragraphs 1-8). The principal dispute concerns the proportion of the Palestinian men killed who can be classified as civilians or combatants. Israel has estimated that at least 700 Hamas fighters were among the dead, while the estimate of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights is closer to 300. The difference relates in part to the status of those members of the civilian police force in Gaza who were not engaged in fighting, and whom Israel apparently intentionally targeted. 91. There are strong and credible reports of war crimes and other violations of international norms. On the basis of the extensive information available, the great majority of observers have concluded that systematic and impartial war crimes investigations must be undertaken. To date, as described below, there is no indication of any credible moves in this direction at the national level; on the contrary, all developments point in the opposite direction. 92. There are, however, also some who have sought to refute or discredit the information gathered and the conclusions drawn in those reports. To take but one example, a group called NGO Monitor in a report entitled “The NGO front in the Gaza war: the Durban strategy continues” of February 2009, called “entirely unfounded” a claim that Israel had committed indiscriminate attacks against civilians, a claim that it attributed to Human Rights Watch, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Amnesty International, Al Mezan and a range of other groups. This refutation is based on the argument that the Israel Defense Forces had “legal advisers embedded with combat units making analyses prior to any military action”. The assumption is that indiscriminate attacks could never occur given the role of these advisers. Moreover, the non-governmental organizations levelling these charges are said not to “possess military expertise, detailed information on the dispersal of weapons by Hamas”, nor to be “privy to Israeli targeting decisions”. As a result, the report argues that they can make no “credible evaluation”. 93. This exchange goes to the heart of the issue. No amount of legal input into decision-making by lawyers can render post hoc accountability unnecessary. Indeed, such