A/HRC/29/52 the time given for evacuation between the warning and the actual strike was insufficient. In one case examined by the commission, a 22-member family, including nine children, were given just a few minutes to evacuate their home after a “roof knock” in the early hours of the morning, while they were asleep; 19 of the 22 people present in the house died. The commission concluded that “roof knocks” cannot be considered an effective warning given the confusion they often cause to building residents and the short time allowed to evacuate before the actual strike. 43. The limited effectiveness of the above-mentioned precautionary measures must have become abundantly clear in the early days of the operation, given that many buildings were destroyed, together with their inhabitants. The apparent lack of steps to re-examine these measures in the light of the mounting civilian toll suggests that Israel did not comply with its obligation to take all feasible precautions before the attacks. 44. Furthermore, the large number of targeted attacks against residential buildings and the fact that such attacks continued throughout the operation, even after the dire impact of these attacks on civilians and civilian objects became apparent, raise concern that the strikes may have constituted military tactics reflective of a broader policy, approved at least tacitly by decision-makers at the highest levels of the Government of Israel.26 45. The commission also considered air strikes against prima facie residential buildings that did not cause deaths because the buildings had been vacated. These included attacks against houses of senior political figures and high-ranking members of armed groups in their absence, and against three high-rise buildings in the last days of the conflict. Without precise information about the possible military use of these premises, the commission is unable to make a conclusive assessment regarding Israel’s respect of the principle of distinction. These attacks raise concerns that Israel’s interpretation of what constitutes a “military objective” may be broader than the definition provided for by international humanitarian law.27 3. Ground operations 46. With regard to operations by Israel, the commission investigated attacks in three neighbourhoods: in Shuja’iya (on 19, 20 and 30 July); in Khuza’a (from 20 July to 1 August); and in Rafah (from 1 to 3 August), large areas of which were levelled to the ground. After an assessment of all available information, the commission identified five key patterns with respect to the ground operations. (a) Use of artillery and other explosive weapons in densely populated areas 47. Talal Al Helo, a man from Shuja’iya, recalled “I am not a fighter, I am a civilian and I care about the well-being of my family. The attacks were everywhere. Everything was coming under attack, the roads and buildings; there was no safe haven in Shuja’iya. We walked as the missiles kept arriving. We saw bodies of people in the streets. We came across the […] bodies of young and old people, women and children.” 48. During the ground operations, the Israel Defense Forces used explosive weapons extensively in densely populated areas of Gaza. These weapons included artillery and tank shells, mortars and air-dropped high-explosive munitions. The Forces reported that, during 26 27 See the judgement of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia on Kupreškić et al of 14 January 2000; Amnesty International, “Families Under the Rubble” (see footnote 19), pp. 6 and 42; and FIDH, “Trapped and Punished: The Gaza Civilian Population under Operation Protective Edge”, October 2014, pp. 29–30. See Protocol I, art. 52, para. 2. 11