A/HRC/40/74 F. Legal assessment of the demonstrations 32. In the commission’s view, the demonstrations were civilian in nature, had clearly stated political aims and, despite some acts of significant violence, did not constitute combat or a military campaign. Thus, the legal framework applicable to policing the protests was that of law enforcement, based in international human rights law. This assessment did not change following the commission’s investigation into the demonstrators’ affiliation to or membership in organized armed groups. Owing to the ongoing armed conflict, the rules of international humanitarian law were also in effect and operated as lex specialis during active hostilities. International humanitarian law only permits attacks that comply with the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution. 33. Founded in the right to life, law enforcement rules based on international human rights law permit potentially lethal force by law enforcement agencies or security forces only in self-defence or for the defence of others when there is an imminent threat to life. A State’s use of force must be necessary to achieve a legitimate law enforcement objective, and the force used must be proportionate to the harm being averted. The use of firearms against the human body is potentially lethal force. 34. For a threat to life to be regarded as imminent, an attacker should have no remaining preparatory steps and be in sufficient geographic proximity for the attack to succeed. An imminent or immediate threat should be understood to mean a matter of seconds, not hours (A/HRC/26/36, para. 59). 35. Israeli and Palestinian non-governmental human rights organizations challenged the application of lethal force by Israeli forces at the fence in the Israel Supreme Court, contending that the rules of engagement violated international law because they were too permissive or were being applied permissively. The Court disagreed and approved the rules of engagement, holding that “the use of potentially lethal force for the sake of dispersing a mass riot – from which an actual and imminent danger is posed to life or bodily integrity – is, in principle, permitted, subject to proving necessity and proportionality.” The Court declined to examine how the rules were applied on the ground, deferring to the internal investigations of Israeli security forces. 7 36. The interpretation and application of the legal thresholds of “imminent threat to life” under international human rights law and “direct participation in hostilities” under international humanitarian law had a direct impact on the commission’s findings, ultimately serving to distinguish between lawful and unlawful uses of lethal force. To make such an assessment was the commission’s primary task when analysing whether violations had been committed against demonstrators. Here it considered the evolution of international humanitarian law and international human rights law since the Second World War, which, amid vigorous discussion, have converged in the direction of increased protection of individuals. G. Statistics 37. The commission focused its investigation on fatalities and physical injuries occurring in the context of the demonstrations between 30 March and 31 December 2018. See the table below. 7 6 See Yesh Din – Volunteers for Human Rights and Others v. Israel Defense Forces Chief of General Staff and Others, Case No. HCJ 3003/18, Judgment of 24 May 2018. The rules of engagement were not shown to the court.