A/HRC/43/21 approached the Military Advocate General, he was told that the investigation was almost completed and that a charge list would be issued soon. On 12 January 2018, Israeli media reported that the Military Advocate General had decided to close the case against the Israel Defense Forces officer. 56 With the defendant having supposedly acted based on the assumption that the persons in the car were involved in an earlier incident of stone throwing, the military investigators found that the erroneous identification of the car was “sincere and reasonable” and that the forces had “operated appropriately”.57 After the investigation was closed, the family proceeded with a civil lawsuit, which was pending as at December 2019. The father has explained that the loss of Mahmoud has had a devastating impact on his family. His younger son avoids leaving the house while his wife suffers from episodes during which she abruptly breaks down in tears or stares in front of her without saying a word. Rules of engagement 33. The independent international commission of inquiry on the protests in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has stressed that scarce accountability measures arising out of Operations Cast Lead and Protective Edge and public comments by high-ranking public officials cast doubt over the State’s willingness to scrutinize the actions of military and civilian leadership who drafted, approved and supervised the implementation of the rules of engagement governing the actions of Israeli forces at the demonstrations. 58 The rules of engagement of the Israeli security forces remain largely confidential. The Government of Israel, however, has outlined some of their operational implications in its response to two petitions submitted by six Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations to the High Court of Justice on 15 and 23 April 2018.59 34. The Israel Defense Forces have provided further information on its rules of engagement (referred to as “standard operating procedures”). In particular, they have clarified the notion of “key instigators” or “key rioters”, which had been treated with caution by the High Court of Justice in its judgment on the legality of the open-fire regulation policy in May 2018. 60 International law does not recognize as such these two categories of individuals in the context of demonstrations. According to Israel Defense Forces instructions, “where the commander assesses that the use of potentially lethal force is required to repel the real and imminent danger posed by a crowd, the commander will order such force only against ‘key instigators’ or ‘key rioters’”.61 The Forces also note that individuals falling into those two categories “are often conducting activities within the violent riots for a lengthy period of time, and snipers face a challenge in identifying a time which provides the necessary circumstances for carrying out their fire while reducing the risk of hitting above the knee or hitting someone else. For example, snipers may act as a person temporarily moves away from the crowd or rests before continuing his activity”.62 Such a conclusion is highly problematic because it excessively broadens the notion of “imminent threat”, particularly in relation to its temporal proximity, an interpretation that does not find support in international human rights law standards or jurisprudence.63 The Israel Defense Forces have provided a list of examples of behaviour that could trigger the use of lethal force against the two categories of 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 10 A/HRC/37/41, para. 21. See also www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-idf-officer-won-t-beindicted-for-opening-fire-againstrules-killing-palestinian-boy-1.5730351. See A/HRC/40/43, para. 23. A/HRC/40/74, para. 111. www.idf.il/media/48315/petition-gaza-border-events-summary-of-state-position.pdf and https://s3-euwest-1.amazonaws.com/files.yesh-din.org/Gaza+Fire+Regulations+Petition/State+response+ Gaza+petition.pdf (in Hebrew only). See also A/HRC/40/43 para. 16. High Court of Justice of Israel, Yesh Din v. Chief of General Staff, IDF (case No. 3003/18), judgment of 24 May 2018. Israel Defense Forces, “Gaza border events”, p. 83. Ibid., pp. 87–88. In that regard, the commission of inquiry has stressed that it is clear that the “imminent threat to life” standard – as applied in the rules of engagement – was too far removed from the criteria as understood in international law (A/HRC/40/CRP.2, para. 324).