A/HRC/42/CRP.1 890. In addition to the review of more than 70 incidents investigated by the JIAT conducted in its first mandate, the Group of Experts reviewed – in its current mandate – the most recent JIAT conclusions, as published in the media between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019, pertaining to more than 40 cases. Unfortunately, the Group of Experts’ request to the coalition for an update on the status of all cases examined and summary of findings was not responded to by the time of finalization of this report. Despite noticeable progress over the years as to the information provided and also an increase in the recognition of ‘errors’, the analysis as published in press releases remains in most cases very succinct and repetitive, and does not allow one to conclude whether investigations met international standards, raising serious concerns in terms of thoroughness and credibility. Findings pertaining to allegations of civilian casualties or damage remained divided into three categories of conclusions: a) human error (mainly false intelligence) or technical error; b) the coalition was not the originator of the attack; c) the targeted object was a military objective. While in some cases, JIAT deplores the loss of lives or damage to civilian infrastructure and recommends some sort of assistance, only two of the press releases examined seem to reach the conclusion that members of the coalition may have violated international humanitarian law. These two cases, in which JIAT recognized that the rules of engagement were not respected, implicitly acknowledged a lack of respect for the principle of precautions in attack. These findings pertain to the airstrike on a bus and local market in Sa’dah on 9 August 20181426 (see below) and the airstrike on a wedding tent in Hajjah on 24 April 20181427 (see first report of the Group of Experts A/HRC/39/43, para. 32). 891. The Group of Experts has concerns as to the international humanitarian law provisions invoked to justify certain actions, and as to the legal analysis backing these findings.1428 In particular, it is very concerning that once the JIAT has determined the existence of a legitimate military target, it does not refer to the necessary proportionality analysis. Indeed, according to the principle of proportionality, international humanitarian law requires that expected incidental civilian casualties or damage to civilian objects should not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct anticipated military advantage. Accordingly, armed forces should weigh the military advantage that an attack is anticipated to give against the expected civilian casualties or damage and make sure that a specific attack does not lead to excessive civilian loss. There is no indication of such analysis in the published summaries of JIAT, which in most cases concluded that a course of action was legal as soon as the target was identified as legitimate. However, such legality would not be a given if the principle of proportionality was not also respected. As to the principle of precautions in attack, precautionary measures have been reported in some cases, such as the timing for the attack and making sure that there was no civilian presence, but there is no systematic analysis of the respect for this principle either. In view of this, the Group has concerns about whether the thoroughness and credibility of the work of the JIAT meets the requirements for an accountability mechanism to meet international law standards. This also underlines concerns as to the mechanism’s impartiality. Effectiveness 892. At the time of writing, the Group of Experts had not received any information in response to its queries about the number of cases referred to national authorities, those that led to prosecutions, and the number of convictions. The lack of transparency on this issue also raises questions as to the effectiveness of this mechanism in terms of accountability. 1426 www.spa.gov.sa/1804423; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7MC71eDUI&feature=youtu.be. 1427 www.spa.gov.sa/1812903. 1428 In most cases JIAT refers to provisions of Additional Protocol I, which is only applicable in international armed conflicts (although many of its provisions are considered relevant in noninternational armed conflicts as a matter of customary international law), see e.g. www.spa.gov.sa/1875235 re MSF cholera centre as developed below; www.spa.gov.sa/1933921; www.spa.gov.sa/1933919; www.spa.gov.sa/1919945; www.spa.gov.sa/1914219; www.spa.gov.sa/1914218; www.spa.gov.sa/1914214; www.spa.gov.sa/1914211; www.spa.gov.sa/1914206; www.spa.gov.sa/1904825; in another case, it applies UN Charter rules to justify self-defence in what amounted to a law-enforcement operation (www.spa.gov.sa/1875234). 213