A/HRC/16/67 of aerial attacks in civilian areas, however, continued to claim the largest percentage of civilian casualties attributed to PGFs, causing 165 civilian deaths (41 per cent of the 401 civilian deaths attributed to PGFs) and 121 injuries (32 per cent of the civilian injuries attributed to PGFs) in the first 11 months of 2010. OHCHR/UNAMA documented increased use of aerial attacks between July and October 2010, resulting in more alleged civilian casualties, particularly in the southern, northern and eastern regions of the country. 16. Search and seizure operations, mainly night searches, resulted in 63 deaths (16 per cent of civilian deaths by PGFs) and numerous detentions. Although night searches do not cause a large number of civilian casualties, these operations continue to cause anger and frustration within Afghan society. Communities’ concerns included lack of effective investigation and prosecution for abuses that occurred during raids, lack of information regarding the location of persons detained in night raids and the inability to receive compensation for loss of life, injury and destruction of property. Communities also reported a continuing lack of cultural awareness and sensitivity on the part of certain troops involved in raids. Invasion of people’s homes, especially at night, searching of women’s quarters by men and violating the honour of women negatively effects the reputation and future of the entire family. 17. Escalation-of-force incidents (PGF shooting at suspected AGE attackers) accounted for 11 per cent of civilian deaths by PGFs in the same period. 18. Tactical directives and standard operating procedures implemented in 2010 by international military forces regulating night searches and rules of engagement on escalation of force, together with the July 2009 and August 2010 tactical directives restricting air strikes, appear to have contributed to a significant reduction in civilian casualties by PGFs. OHCHR/UNAMA welcomes the efforts of international military forces to minimize civilian deaths and injuries and urges these be further improved and sustained. At the same time, OHCHR/UNAMA highlights concerns about the lack of full implementation of directives and procedures on the ground, and the continuing lack of transparency on investigations and accountability for civilian casualties. C. Advocacy on protection of civilian issues 19. OHCHR/UNAMA met with embassies, donors and Afghan and international military forces to advocate for implementation of the recommendations published in Afghanistan: Mid Year Report on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict 2010. OHCHR/UNAMA held individual meetings with high-level officials at the Canadian embassy, the French embassy, the Norwegian embassy, and the embassies of the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and made presentations to a large group of key donors. Advocacy activities also included briefings on the report’s findings and recommendations, given to the Deputies Committee of the National Security Council and the Security Operations Group that advises the Deputies Committee, and to the Senior Security Shura, a high-level weekly meeting chaired by the Afghan Minister of Defence and attended by ISAF commander General David Petraeus. OHCHR/UNAMA held meetings at Camp Bastion in Helmand province, and in other regional command headquarters, with ISAF, the United States Marines and other interlocutors to discuss the report’s recommendations and civilian protection issues. 20. On 11 August 2010, the Taliban released a statement on their website criticizing the OHCHR/UNAMA 2010 mid-year report on the protection of civilians. The statement alleged that the report “is based on political expedience, exaggeration and propaganda instead of surfacing the facts” and was followed by another statement on 15 August calling for the establishment of a joint committee of the Taliban, OHCHR/UNAMA and ISAF to conduct investigations into civilian casualties. On 23 December, the Taliban released a 7