A/HRC/45/CRP.7 374. Among these eight cases are four cases that the Group of Experts has previously documented: namely numbers 3, 6, 7 and 8 in the above listing. From examining JIAT press releases and press conferences regarding these four cases, JIAT’s conclusions appear to relate primarily to failures to take the necessary steps, including following relevant procedures, to minimise damage to civilians/civilian objects.560 In each case, in addition to legal proceedings, the JIAT recommended that monies be paid to families of victims and/or relevant persons in respect of material damage.561 In some cases, recommendations were made to review the Rules of Engagement. 375. In February 2020, Colonel Turki al-Maliki, the Spokesman for the coalition forces, stated that the Joint Command of the coalition had referred the cases involving violation of the rules of engagement to the concerned countries. Al-Maliki indicated that the files included “documents and evidence to complete the formalities on accountability.” Al-Maliki also noted that “that the judicial authorities have begun the procedures of the trial, and the judgments will be announced once they acquire the peremptory status.”562 376. The Group of Experts requested further information on these cases, and any other cases subsequently referred to national authorities. In particular, the Group of Experts sought details of the identity of the relevant national authorities dealing with the cases and information concerning the status of national proceedings: e.g., the nature of any charges, the level of personnel charged, and the outcome of any proceedings (for example, convictions for offences, the imposition of punishment and/or disciplinary penalties). As of the date of the preparation of this report, the Group of Experts had not received any response. From its search of public records, the Group is not aware of any courts-martial having been concluded with respect to cases that the Group of Experts has examined. 377. The Security Council-mandated Panel of Experts also reported that JIAT had concluded there had been “technical” error in an additional 10 cases.563 These cases were: No. Case Location Date 1 Street in Sa‘dah Sa‘dah 2 June 2015 2 Sham water factory Hajjah 30 August 2015 3 Sa’baa university Sana’a 16 July 2015 4 Two houses in Saba‘in district Sana’a 22 September 2015 5 House in Faj Attan Sana’a 25 August 2017* 6 Building in Dar Saber Ta‘izz 26 May 2015 7 Building near ministry of defence Sana’a 10 November 2017 8 Hasabah district Sana’a 21 December 2015 9 Kitaf hospital Sa‘dah 26 March 2019* 10 Qobari district Sana’a 9 June 2017 Source: JIAT, as quoted by the Security Council-mandated Panel of Experts. *Previously investigated by the Group of Eminent Experts. 378. Of these 10 cases, two relate to airstrikes previously examined by the Group: numbers 5 and 9 above. The press releases concerning JIAT investigations in these two cases, reveals 560 Details of the cases were found at: www.spa.gov.sa/1812903 (Wedding Tent in Hajjah case); www.spa.gov.sa/1875235 (MSF Cholera Treatment plant case), www.spa.gov.sa/1804423 (Bus in Dhahyan market, Sa’ada case; and https://www.spa.gov.sa/1548647 (Great Hall, Al-Kubra case). 561 The topic of reparations is dealt with separately below: see para. 403. 562 https://www.spa.gov.sa/viewstory.php?lang=en&newsid=2034044 (12 February 2020). 563 S/2020/326, p. 40. 94