On 26 February 2010, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 64/254, requesting that the Secretary-General report back in five months on the investigations by Israel and the 'Palestinian side'  into serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law as documented in the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (also known as the Goldstone report).

On 26 February 2010, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 64/254, requesting that the Secretary-General report back in five months on the investigations by Israel and the 'Palestinian side'  into serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law as documented in the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (also known as the Goldstone report). The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 98 in favour to 7 against (Canada, Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Panama, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United States) with 31 abstentions.

The vote revealed that since the Assembly's first resolution in response to the Goldstone report late last year (Resolution 64/10), several Western and European States have reconsidered their opposition to the Goldstone report. That resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 114 in favour to 18 against, with 44 abstentions. A number of States that voted against the first resolution, but chose to abstain from this year's text, indicated their preparedness to give the parties to the conflict a chance to conduct credible, independent investigations into the serious human rights violations they are accused of. These States were Australia, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia.  

Triggered by the recent release of the Secretary-General's report (A/64/651) on the investigations both parties had undertaken in the last three months, this latest resolution repeats most of the language of the initial text but gives the parties another five months to conduct their investigations. In his first report on the matter, the Secretary-General concluded that 'no determination can be made on the implementation of the resolution by the parties concerned' because all investigations remain ongoing. In so doing, the Secretary-General avoided assessing the quality of those investigations or indicating how the Assembly might judge whether they were in compliance with applicable international standards. In a media statement at the time of the release of the report, the Secretary-General's Spokesperson indicated that a request to 'report' to the General Assembly did not include a requirement to 'analyse', but merely to "provide an overview of the implementation" of the resolution. The statement by the Netherlands (on behalf of the Czech Republic and Hungary) was critical of the fact the resolution was silent on the 'differences in follow-up' on the part of both parties. They felt the text should have pointed out that that Israel had been conducting investigations for some time, whereas the Palestinian Authority had only set up a commission to do so four days prior to the Assembly's reporting deadline.

It therefore remains to be seen what information the parties will submit to the Seretary-General later in the year, and whether he will again take a minimalist interpretation of his mandate to 'report' on that material. This latest resolution again leaves open the door for the Secretary-General to suggest to the General Assembly what further action the UN (including the Security Council) might need to take.

The 13th session of the UN Human Rights Council commencing on 1st March 2010 is expected to hold  follow up discussions on the ‘Goldstone report’ which the Council endorsed at its 12th special session in October 2009. At that special session, the Council requested both the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner to report to the 13th session on the implementation of the recommendations contained in the ‘Goldstone report’.

For more information see:
ISHR's news story on the General Assembly's adoption of Resolution 64/10