A/HRC/42/CRP.1 Further, even if any prosecutions were underway, according to the Saudi press agency, a royal pardon was issued on 10 July 2018 for all Saudi soldiers deployed in Yemen involved in “Operation Restoring Hope”, absolving them of their respective military and disciplinary penalties “in regard of some rules and discipline”. 1429 Although it remains unclear to what rules this refers, it raises further concerns in terms of effectiveness and credibility. 893. In cases where the JIAT has acknowledged incidental civilian casualties or damage to civilian infrastructure, especially in cases where it identified “technical errors” (three cases1430) or “unintentional human errors” (two cases1431), it has recommended that assistance be provided to victims. Such assistance has also been recommended in cases where no errors were acknowledged, but collateral damage was assessed to have occurred. While such recommendations for assistance are a welcome step, it remains unclear how such recommendations are being followed up, and whether a specific mechanism has been put in place to ensure that they are. It must also be noted that the JIAT recommends the provision of “voluntary assistance, i.e. assistance that is not necessarily linked to or acknowledging any wrongdoing, and hence does not amount to reparations. Furthermore, in some cases investigated by the Group of Experts, there are concerns that the objective of payments may have been to silence victims or witnesses. 894. An analysis of JIAT’s findings in two cases that have also been investigated by the Group of Experts confirmed a number of the above-highlighted concerns: Attack on the MSF Cholera Treatment Centre, Abs district, Hajjah, 11 June 2018 895. In this incident (see details and analysis in the Chapter on Life in Sana’a and areas under de facto authority control, section on airstrikes), the JIAT acknowledged an error by the coalition at the level of intelligence gathering. In its findings released on 16 January 2019, JIAT nevertheless blamed MSF for failing to request the inclusion of the site in the no-strike list, “in violation of Article 12(3) of Additional Protocol I.” It further stated that satellite imagery reviewed did not evidence any sign of distinction on the roof of the warehouse, nor on the nearby buildings, “in violation of Article 5 of Annex I to Additional Protocol II.” This appears to be both an inaccurate application of the treaty law, given that Additional Protocol I only regulates international armed conflicts, and a wrong interpretation of the scope of application and consequences of the mentioned provisions, as well as relevant customary international law. Contrary to JIAT’s application, Article 12(3) is addressed to parties to the conflict, and the provision is a suggestion for a method for increased protection whose disregard does not alleviate the responsibility on the party to the conflict to ensure that medical units are respected and protected at all times. Article 5 of Annex I pertaining to the use of the distinctive emblem is meant to assist militaries in meeting their own responsibilities for identifying civilian objects that are specifically protected. The JIAT interpretation of these provisions incorrectly reverses the burden by placing it on civilians to make themselves clearly known to attacking parties in armed conflict. In addition, the assessment by the JIAT of the communication between the coalition and MSF appears contradictory given that – as acknowledged by JIAT – MSF had informed the coalition of its movements to the area of the strike on a number of occasions. The JIAT nevertheless blames MSF for not having formally requested the site to be included in the no-strike list. Even if MSF had not requested the site to be listed as a medical facility on the no-strike list, which perhaps could be understood since the site was not yet operational as a medical facility, the Group of Experts considers that the coalition had ample information to indicate that the facility was being used by MSF, including near to the time of the attack. Attack on a bus in Dhahyan market, Majz, Sa’dah, 9 August 2018 896. Another incident investigated by the Group of Experts where the JIAT provided some legal analysis was the 9 August 2018 strike in Sa’dah on a bus carrying 1429 https://www.spa.gov.sa/viewfullstory.php?lang=en&newsid=1783696. www.spa.gov.sa/1933922; www.spa.gov.sa/1914211; wam.ae/en/details/1395302707813. 1431 www.spa.gov.sa/1875235; www.spa.gov.sa/1797113. 1430 214