The mandate of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict is \u201cTo investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.\u201d

Unofficial transcript of 29 September 2009 press conference at the Palais
des Nations in Geneva by members of the UN Fact Finding Mission on
the Gaza Conflict - Justice Richard Goldstone, Hina Jilani, Professor
Christine Chinkin, Colonel Desmond Travers

Q: The Israeli government has rejected your report on three grounds: number 1 that
the mandate is flawed and one sided and 2, that at least part of the report is biased
against the Israelis and 3, that at least one member, specifically Professor Chinkin is
biased because she made a statement, not on human rights issues but on the legality of
the war. Could you please comment on these charges and secondly do we have any
indications that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will take up your recommendations
and submit this report to the Security Council according to Article 99.

A: Justice Richard Goldstone
Firstly, as far as the mandate is concerned it was made very clear by me in this very
same room when this appointment was announced that the mandate I accepted was an
even handed mandate and I hope the report demonstrates that. We\u2019ve dealt with all
violations of international law relevant to the context of the military operations of
December 2008 and January 2009 and I was happy that the overwhelming number of
countries that spoke at the meeting this morning recognized the fact that there was an
even handed mandate, that that was taken seriously. The question of bias is really I
think must now be demonstrated by the report. If the report demonstrates bias well so
be it. I thinks it\u2019s a little bit irrelevant at this stage to judge the report by what I would
suggest are very flimsy allegations of bias against any members of the commission -
of the Mission. I\u2019ve dealt really on so many occasions with the allegations against

that the letter she signed - and that\u2019s what it\u2019s based on, a letter she signed, that was
published in the London Times and signed by most of the leading international
humanitarian lawyers in the United Kingdom - talked about the legality of the military
operations themselves and didn\u2019t comment on the manner in which they were
executed. Our mission was not called upon to deal with the legality of the war at all.
We were dealing with humanitarian law and human rights law and we dealt primarily
with the manner in which the operations on both sides were carried out and the extent
to which they were in violation. So it seems to me with all the emphasis I can place on
it, that the allegations of bias against any of the members, Professor Chinkin in
particular, are straws on which some people are clutching to dismiss a very serious
report. As far as the SG is concerned, I know nothing at all. My understanding is he
will only become seized of the matter if the Human Rights Council accepts the
recommendations and refers the matter to him but I would add that certainly the SG
has been very warm in his suppo rt and encouragement for the mission.

The mandate of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict is \u201cTo investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.\u201d

is there were during your visits in Gaza there was a visible presence of Hamas
security in the vicinity of your mission. Did that in any way inhibit the testimony you
received while in Gaza?

A: Justice Richard Goldstone
Well, obviously it\u2019s disappo inting that the US has found the report to be deeply
flawed. It\u2019s difficult to deal with the allegation because we\u2019ve received absolutely no
detail at all. The first I\u2019ve heard of that was some oblique statements to that effect
earlier in the day by other members of the US administration and it\u2019s something I\u2019d be
happy to deal with if we get detail on which that statement is based. Let me say I think
we were all encouraged by the fact that the US in effect has accepted and supports the
major recommendation of the commission and that is it\u2019s called for acceptable
investigations of the allegations by both sides. I think that\u2019s important support for that
recommendation. As far as the second question is concerned, again that\u2019s arisen on a
number of occasions and I have on every occasion possible categorically denied what
is, I think, a mischievous allegation based on no factual evidence at all and it\u2019s
completely incorrect. At no time during our visits to Gaza \u2013 we spent nine days there
\u2013 at no time did any of us see or was any of us aware of any presence of Hamas
officials, police or security or anybody else at any time that we were interviewing
witnesses. I don\u2019t believe that witnesses that we saw were in fact influenced by the
presence of anybody in the vicinity. I can speak with confidence on behalf of all four
members of the mission that if we had been aware of any inappropriate presence of
Hamas police while we were investigating witnesses we would have found that quite
objectionable and we would have taken immediate steps to do something about it, to
redress that situation so with every confidence give you the assurance that that
allegation is without any foundation in fact at all.

Q (Follow up): Our reporters in Gaza did note that there was Hamas in the vicinity of
your interviews and it would have been possible for them to identify the people who
gave testimony. Are you saying that\u2019s simply not true?

A: Justice Richard Goldstone
No. Look, obviously I\u2019m not saying that. I\u2019ve got little doubt that Hamas officials had
the ability to know who we were seeing. I think that happens in any similar situation.
It was certainly my experience in Rwanda in the former Yugoslavia, I think its one of
the facts of life in terms of this sort of investigation, but they were nowhere in the
vicinity where they could in any way overheard or in any way exercised any direct
influence one any of the witnesses we saw. Let me add this, that the strong
impression we all had and it\u2019s something we discussed is that we were impressed with
- the openness with which people spoke to us, whether or not they supported Hamas
and some clearly didn\u2019t support Hamas and some of them who were openly critical of
Hamas are referred to in our report. So whether people in the Hamas authority were
aware of who was speaking or not is something I don\u2019t know but it wouldn\u2019t surprise

The mandate of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict is \u201cTo investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.\u201d

A: Justice Richard Goldstone
Well as to where the report should go and I\u2019ll invite other members to comment,
certainly I would like to see transparent, open investigations into the findings made in
the report both in Israel and in Gaza. As I indicated earlier today the mission was in
no way a judicial or even quasi judicial investigation. It was an informal investigation
and we reached conclusions on the basis of information that we got on the spot from
victims, eye witnesses, and from what we saw with our own eyes in Gaza. Similarly,
we made findings on the basis of damage and trauma by rockets and mortar fire in
southern Israel on the basis of what we were told by some of the witnesses that we
interviewed - some of them gave public testimony in Geneva, from many reports we
got from non governmental organizations and government reports of damage and the
effects of rockets and mortars in southern Israel. So, these allegations need to be
tested. If I can draw an analogy \u2013 when I arrived in The Hague as effectively the first
chief prosecutor of the Yugoslavia tribunal I was presented with volumes of evidence
collected in a similar way by a commission of experts that had been set up by the
Security Council. It wasn\u2019t evidence on which we could prove war crimes, it was a
useful road map for us as to where we should go to investigate and that\u2019s the purpose
to which I would hope our report is put by serious investigators having a look at the
facts that we\u2019ve referred to - that they need to be appropriately and deeply
investigated by experienced investigators and to the extent that there\u2019s evidence of
serious violations of international law they should be put into the hands of prosecutors
both in Israel and in Gaza. So that\u2019s where I\u2019d like to see the report being used in
respect of accountability. There are other recommendations in the report which I
would suggest are important. Certainly one that the General Assembly should
urgently convene a discussion on the legality and the future of munitions such as
white phosphorous and flechettes and heavy metal not only in respect of the human
suffering they can cause if they are used inappropriately but also the environmental
damage of which there is evidence which we suggest should be investigated and
monitored not only on the Gaza Strip but also Southern Israel. So there are a number
of investigations at various levels that certainly speaking for myself that I\u2019d like to see
go further.

I think one thing we were all very encouraged by this morning was how many of the delegations called the report a serious report, a professional report and I think it\u2019s that seriousness and professional basis that we would like to be seen taken forward in a number of different fora, very obviously as part of the peace process, not to see it as an obstruction to the peace process but as a block upon which negotiations within the peace process that focus upon the needs of people within the region could be used. And secondly that the report can and should be used both by and to support of civil society organizations within the regional and elsewhere.