A/HRC/29/52 7. The commission is grateful to the many victims and witnesses who shared their experiences and other relevant information. The fact that, despite its repeated requests, the commission was not granted access to the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel posed a challenge for conducting interviews in person with victims and witnesses and made viewing the sites where violations were alleged to have been committed impossible. Owing to the restrictions on movement preventing victims and witnesses from leaving Gaza, the commission obtained first-hand testimony by means of interviews conducted via Skype, videoconference and telephone. It conducted confidential interviews with victims and witnesses from the West Bank in Jordan (in November 2014 and January 2015) and with victims and witnesses from Israel in Geneva (in January 2015). 8. The commission and its secretariat conducted more than 280 interviews with victims and witnesses and received more than 500 written submissions and other documentation from a wide range of sources (see annexes II and III). It reviewed information publicly available, including on official websites of the Government of Israel. The commission used all the information gathered in making its assessments while carefully considering the credibility and reliability of sources. It gave particular weight to first-hand testimonies, recognizing the limitations resulting from the fact that the interviews were conducted remotely, the lapse in time since the incidents, and the possibility of reprisals. 9. Some sources requested that their submissions be treated confidentially for fear of possible consequences of testifying before the commission, including for their safety. Primary responsibility for protecting victims, witnesses and other persons cooperating with the commission rests with their States of residence and nationality. The commission appreciated the valuable contributions made to its work by OHCHR, United Nations agencies and programmes, non-governmental organizations and experts. 10. Consistent with established practice, the commission employed a “reasonable ground” standard of proof in its factual assessment of the incidents investigated and legal analysis of the patterns found. Such a standard is lower than that required in criminal trials; the commission therefore does not make any conclusions with regard to the responsibility of specific individuals for alleged violations of international law. 11. Given its restricted access, its limited resources and the short time frame available for its inquiry, the commission selected incidents on the basis of certain criteria, in particular, the gravity of the allegations of violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law; their significance in demonstrating patterns of alleged violations; access to victims, witnesses and supporting evidence; and the geographic location of the incident. III. Legal framework 12. All parties to the conflict are bound by the relevant provisions and rules of international humanitarian and human rights treaty and customary law. The commission considers that, in situations of armed conflict or occupation, international humanitarian law and international human rights law apply concurrently, 2 and shares the position of United Nations human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice, according to which Israel bears responsibility for implementing its human rights treaty obligations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.3 The State of Palestine is bound by the obligations 2 3 4 Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004, para. 106. Ibid., paras. 111–113. See also CCPR/C/ISR/CO/4, para. 5.