A/HRC/42/17 Team’s functioning, methodology and policies, and the insufficient legal analysis presented in its public findings. A review of the Team’s latest conclusions, as published in various press releases, raises concerns as to the impartiality of its investigations and the thoroughness and credibility of its analysis and findings. The assessment of the targeting process is particularly worrying, as it implies that an attack hitting a military target is legal, notwithstanding civilian casualties, hence ignoring the principle of proportionality. While the Team acknowledged human errors in the targeting process and some technical errors in a few cases, it did not expressly hold the coalition responsible for any violation. 91. The de facto authorities indicated to the Group of Experts that they had not found any of their members responsible for violations of human rights law or international humanitarian law. Given the lack of meaningful information provided to the Group regarding investigation processes, the Group questions whether the de facto authorities have examined and investigated alleged violations of international law, in accordance with international standards, at all. 92. Third States have a specific influence on the parties to the conflict in Yemen, or directly or indirectly support them, including by means of intelligence and logistic support, as well as arms transfers. Such is the case of France, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America, among other States. States may be held responsible for providing aid or assistance for the commission of international law violations if the conditions for complicity are fulfilled. States are obliged to take all reasonable measures to ensure respect for international humanitarian law by other States. Furthermore, the Arms Trade Treaty, to which France and the United Kingdom are parties, prohibits the authorization of arms transfers with the knowledge that these would be used to commit war crimes. The legality of arms transfers by France, the United Kingdom, the United States and other States remains questionable, and is the subject of various domestic court proceedings. The Group of Experts observes that the continued supply of weapons to parties involved in the conflict in Yemen perpetuates the conflict and the suffering of the population. 93. Credible and viable accountability options are few. A genuine and comprehensive accountability process will be essential to achieving long-term peace and stability in Yemen. Steps to collect and preserve evidence are essential to prepare the ground for such a process. VII. A. Conclusions and recommendations Conclusions 94. The Group of Experts has reasonable grounds to believe that the Governments of Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to the extent they have control, are responsible for human rights violations, including arbitrary deprivation of the right to life, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention, rape and other forms of sexual violence, torture, ill-treatment and child recruitment, and violations of fundamental freedoms, and economic, social and cultural rights. 95. The Group of Experts has reasonable grounds to believe that the de facto authorities are responsible for human rights violations in the areas over which they exercise effective control, including arbitrary deprivation of the right to life, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, sexual violence, torture, ill-treatment and child recruitment, and violations of fundamental freedoms, and economic, social and cultural rights. 96. The Group of Experts has reasonable grounds to believe that the parties to the armed conflict in Yemen have committed a substantial number of violations of international humanitarian law. Subject to a determination by an independent and competent court, the Group finds that: 16