A/HRC/29/52 threat to the security forces. United Nations data indicate that the number of those killed within this period was equivalent to the total number of Palestinian fatalities in similar circumstances throughout 2013 (ibid.). These data further show that the large number of deaths and injuries was a direct result of the regular recourse to live ammunition by the Israeli security forces63 and the apparent rising trend in the use of 0.22 inch calibre bullets in crowd-control situations. The increased use of live ammunition, combined with the spike in casualties, appears to reflect a change in policy guiding the law enforcement operations of the Israel Defense Forces in the West Bank. 64 71. The commission is particularly concerned that the pervasive use of live ammunition inevitably raises the risk of death or serious injury. The use of firearms against those not posing a threat to life or serious injury constitutes a violation of the prohibition of the arbitrary deprivation of life, 65 and may, depending on the circumstances, amount to an act of wilful killing. The unjustified recourse to firearms by law enforcement officials may be considered a war crime when it takes place in the context of an international armed conflict, including a situation of military occupation, and that the person killed was a protected person. VI. Accountability 72. The commission notes the steps taken by Israel to investigate alleged violations of the law of armed conflict by the Israel Defense Forces during operation “Protective Edge”66 and towards bringing its system of investigations into compliance with international standards. Flaws remain, however, with respect to the State’s adherence to international standards. Further significant changes are required to ensure that Israel adequately fulfils its duty to investigate, prosecute and hold perpetrators accountable for violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. One of the measures needed is to enhance the independence and impartiality of the Military Advocate General and to ensure the robust application of international humanitarian law in his decisions regarding criminal investigations. For example, the definition of “military objectives” has implications for both for the Military Advocate General’s operational guidance of troops on the ground and his subsequent assessment of whether to refer a case for criminal investigation. Moreover, the investigations process followed by the Israel Defense Forces focuses on possible individual criminal responsibility at the level of the soldier on the battlefield. Even where the behaviour of soldiers and low-ranking officers during hostilities has come into question, however, this has rarely resulted in criminal investigations. At the policy level, the commission looks forward to reading the report of the State Comptroller’s inquiry into the procedure of decision-making by the military and political echelons during operation “Protective Edge”. The Comptroller’s inquiry should be supplemented by mechanisms – including criminal proceedings67 and disciplinary measures – that aim to hold to account individuals who may have played a role in wrongdoing. In addition, Palestinian victims face significant obstacles that impede their right to benefit from effective remedies, including reparations. 73. The commission concludes that investigations by Palestinian authorities are woefully inadequate, despite allegations of violations of international humanitarian law by 63 64 65 66 67 18 OCHA, Monthly Report, June – August 2014 (see footnote 59). B’Tselem, “Military steps up use of 0.22 inch bullets against Palestinian stone-throwers”, 18 January 2015. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 6. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs (see footnote 5), p. 1. See Fourth Geneva Convention, art. 146.