A/HRC/19/69 1. Free Syrian Army policies and lack of central control 106. The commission carefully reviewed the information gathered on the operations and activities to date of FSA groups. In this regard, the commission notes that, at a minimum, human rights obligations constituting peremptory international law (ius cogens) bind States, individuals and non-State collective entities, including armed groups. Acts violating ius cogens – for instance, torture or enforced disappearances – can never be justified. 107. FSA leaders abroad also assured the commission that the FSA was committed to conducting its operations in accordance with human rights and international law. They requested guidance in shaping rules of engagement consistent with this undertaking. The FSA leadership indicated to the commission that commanders in the field currently made their own rules of engagement in accordance with the training received in the Syrian Armed Forces. 108. The commission was unable to ascertain the extent to which the FSA leadership abroad commanded and controlled the various FSA groups operating in the Syrian Arab Republic. It received conflicting accounts from inside the country. Some local groups seem to recognize the leadership, yet may not communicate with it regularly or receive specific orders from it. Others merely adopt the name “FSA” to underscore their revolutionary aspirations, their army background or the fact that they are not Shabbiha. The commission also received information about Syrian civilians reinforcing anti-Government armed groups, which increases problems of effective control even at the level of local FSA groups. The FSA leadership abroad indicated to the commission that groups on the ground did not receive orders from it. The leadership saw its role as facilitating coordination between different FSA groups and ensuring its media outreach. 109. As the commission was unable to verify the existence of a functioning chain of command or a superior/subordinate relationship between the highest leadership of the FSA and local units, it was unable to determine individual responsibility of FSA leaders abroad. Rather, the commission‟s findings pertain to violations perpetrated by FSA groups in different locations within the country. 2. Abuses by Free Syrian Army groups and other armed groups 110. The Government, in public statements and communications to the commission, repeatedly stated that anti-Government armed groups, in particular FSA groups, had committed gross abuses of human rights. In its note verbale addressed to the commission dated 23 January 2012 (annex XI), the Government referred to “acts of kidnapping, killing, mutilation, forced and involuntary disappearance and violations of the right to life committed by armed groups against Syrian citizens, including women, children and personnel of the army and security forces”. It also mentioned “the killing and forced displacement of anyone who did not comply with the orders of armed groups to participate in protests, strikes, civil disobedience or did not subscribe to their terrorist agenda.” SANA has alleged such incidents in its daily reporting. 111. The commission repeatedly invited the Government to provide information on specific cases. On 15 February 2012, the Government provided a list of specific incidents, providing the date, place and details on “armed actions by terrorist armed gangs” for the period from 23 December 2011 to 10 February 2012. The lists details attacks in all 14 governorates on military and security forces and civilian targets such as schools, universities, factories and warehouses. In the category of attacks on public and State property, 212 incidents are detailed; another 162 incidents concerned bombings or attempted bombings, and 85 incidents involved attacks on installations of the State forces and the police. 20