A/HRC/42/CRP.1 the airstrike had struck a vehicle that ‘was armed’. In the other two cases, the targets were not identified. If the coalition had effectively identified military targets, and those were hit (given the use of high precision weapons), the location of the strikes would raise concerns with respect to the principles of proportionality and precautions in attack, given it would have been foreseeable a number of civilians would be killed in the attack. 525. Two of the three strikes investigated by the Group hit minibuses carrying civilians away from areas where active hostilities were taking place. The first documented strike took place in June 2018 and the last one in late October 2018. During this period, the coalition did not seem to change its modus operandi for airstrikes in al-Hudaydah in spite of the evident considerable impact upon civilians trying to flee the conflict. This raises concerns with regard to the coalition’s respect for the principles of proportionality and precautions in attack. 526. In the one case investigated by the Group for which the JIAT released information from its investigations (the strike on the road between Zabid and al-Garrahi), the JIAT’s statement does not specify the kind and number of weapons that the minibus was allegedly carrying, which – along with other information regarding the targeting process - would have been necessary for the Group of Experts to assess whether the coalition had respected the principle of proportionality. 527. Based on the evidence available, the Group of Experts has reasonable grounds to believe that the coalition carried out airstrikes in al-Hudaydah that may not have complied with the principles of distinction, proportionality and precautions in attack. Violations of the principles of distinction and proportionality are serious violations of international humanitarian law and launching an indiscriminate attack resulting in death or injury to civilians, or launching an attack in the expectation that it will cause excessive incidental civilian loss, injury or damage may lead to individual criminal responsibility for war crimes.840 This may involve criminal responsibility at all levels of command. (b) Houthi Shelling 528. Shelling by all parties to the conflict has been a constant feature of the conflict in alHudaydah, even after the entry into force of the ceasefire. The Group of Experts investigated 10 incidents and examined credible and detailed information on another 10 incidents, in order to identify patterns. The cases below are a sample of the emblematic incidents investigated. 27 June 2018 - al-Markoudhah neighbourhood, al-Hudaydah city841 529. On 27 June 2018, at 16:30 hrs, in al-Markoudhah neighbourhood, al-Hudaydah city, close to the airport, two shells fell in the area. The first shell fell near one of the houses in Markoudhah neighbourhood, and the second landed around 500 meters away from it. The second shell killed seven individuals and injured another six who were outside the house chewing qat. Another two civilians who were inside the house were injured. Most witnesses agreed that the shells came from the west. There was a Houthi base in the 17 July School to the west within range of where the shells landed, allowing the Group to conclude that the shells were fired by the Houthis. The injured were taken to the al-Thawra and military hospitals in the city, where some of them died. In total, nine male individuals were killed, including two boys. Another seven individuals were injured (two men, two women, two boys and one girl). It is not clear whether the house or the gathering was the target. All witnesses denied the presence of fighters in the area at the time of the attack. The area that was hit consists of a long row of houses located next to the main road located in front of the airport. 530. While the impacted area was located near the frontlines, there was no active fighting during the attack. It is probable that the targets were the Yemeni armed forces and affiliated groups located near the airport. However, the impacted area is a residential one, made 840 841 See ICRC Study on customary IHL, rule 156. The approximate location of the incident is 14°45'14.13"N, 42°57'40.54"E. 129