Executive Summary

The management approach of the Saudi/UAE-led coalition's military operations in Yemen since its intervention on March 26, 2015, highlights noticeable patterns of airstrikes targeting civilians, residential areas, infrastructure, and economically vital targets essential for the survival of civilian populations. All airstrikes documented in this report have resulted in the destruction of civilian properties and casualties among civilians, amounting clear violations of international humanitarian law. While the Saudi/UAE-led coalition has established targeting procedures aimed at minimizing the risks of violating international humanitarian law it appears that these procedures in numerous cases were not followed, and necessary precautions were not taken.  Through the Joint Incidents Assessment Team (JIAT), the coalition seeks, through statements published through the Saudi Press Agency, to deny its air attacks to violate international humanitarian law.  (IHL). In addition to the responsibility to investigate breaches of IHL, State members of the Saudi/UAE-led coalition are obligated to investigate war crimes allegedly committed by their nationals or armed forces in their territories, redress victims affected by such violations, and hold those responsible accountable in accordance with the principles of international humanitarian law.

The Joint Incidents Assessment Team (JIAT) was established by the Saudi/UAE-led coalition in 2016, and its initial findings were announced in August of that year. The team is mandated to investigate "allegations and incidents" resulting from the operations of the Saudi/UAE-led coalition in Yemen, issue public reports on its findings, and make recommendations concerning legal actions and disciplinary measures, and provide assistance. The team consists of 14 individuals from the coalition state members, and has the declared responsibility to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian law and incidents in which civilians were allegedly killed as a result of air strikes and other forms of attack. However, since its establishment, independent experts from the United Nations and non-governmental organizations have expressed concerns about the JIAT's lack of transparency, independence, impartiality, and necessary inclusivity for reliable investigations into violations and crimes of international law.

This report presents a detailed picture of the destructive effects of (79) airstrikes conducted by the Saudi/UAE-led coalition, out of a total of 1026 airstrikes documented by Mwatana, since the coalition's intervention on March 26, 2015. This is achieved by providing examples of recurrent patterns of airstrikes targeting civilian objects, which in itself is a strong indicator of the coalition's non-compliance with the principles of distinction, precautions, and proportionality. In the majority of documented airstrikes, it appears that the coalition's airstrikes in Yemen have violated the fundamentals of international humanitarian law and lawful targeting procedures, forming a widespread and recurring pattern of bombing civilian objects with wide-area effect munitions, that would be expected to be included in the No Strike List (NSL), such as residential neighborhoods and health facilities. Also, the coalition has targeted areas with large numbers of civilians. Additionally, consecutive airstrikes, with only a short time interval between them, often without considering the presence of first responders or rescuers, have been a common practice.

A high proportion of coalition airstrikes involved the excessive and disproportionate use of force in relation to the anticipated and direct military advantage of the targets. This was often the result of the coalition's failure to verify the nature of the targets, whether military or civilian, prior to their execution. This pattern is of particular significance when it comes to the question of whether there is a likelihood of grave violations of international humanitarian law being committed. Procedural requirements for target verification should reflect the requirements of international humanitarian law, which stipulate that "everything feasible must be done to verify that the targets are military objectives." The coalition's failure to do everything feasible to verify the targets and assess the potential civilian harms violates the fundamental principles of distinction and proportionality.

In this report, Mwatana for Human Rights rigorously examines the conclusions and findings adopted by the Joint Incidents Assessment Team (JIAT) regarding the coalition's attacks. In its assessment methodology of the 79 airstrikes, official statements were analyzed and compared with what was documented by Mwatana for Human Rights, which is on the ground across Yemen. Mwatana's documentation was done in accordance with a methodology that adheres to international standards. Furthermore, the report scrutinizes the coalition's adherence to international humanitarian law in its airstrikes and identifies the civilian damages caused. 

Based on this, this report challenges the accuracy, credibility, and reliability of the conclusions and findings published by the Joint Incidents Assessment Team. It questions the Team's methodology and the presence of a reliable field investigation, even if it meets minimal investigation standards. Mwatana for Human Rights believes that the Saudi/UAE-led coalition's attacks on civilians and civilian objects, documented by its independent field researchers trained in accordance with the best international standards, must be regarded by the coalition as violations of international humanitarian law. The coalition should also take action to redress the victims and hold those responsible accountable.

The Joint Incidents Assessment Team in its statements largely ignored the extensive damage caused to civilians, civilian objects, and infrastructure resulting from the airstrikes. In most statements, it concluded, without an explanation, that the coalition's attacks did not violate international humanitarian law, favoring the coalition’s claims of a legitimate military objective, presenting a false exoneration for the coalition forces. Consequently, the coalition failed to comply with international humanitarian law requirements to prevent and mitigate civilian harms and reduce disproportionate attacks on legitimate military objectives. The team's failure to recognize civilian harm in many cases indicates the coalition's disregard for the core principles of protection and proportionality inherent in international humanitarian law, both before and after the attacks, including the responsibility to investigate subsequent allegations following the hundreds of attacks over the years of the conflict. This is a clear violation of international humanitarian law, in terms of the principle of protection, precaution, and proportionality.

As with many other aspects of coalition operations, opacity has been a persistent feature of the air campaign in Yemen. Despite requests from independent human rights organizations, the coalition has not published rules of engagement, unified operational procedures, or methods for assessing proportionality and discrimination between civilians and combatants.

When the Joint Incidents Assessment Team refers to precautionary measures, its discussions lack fundamental consistency and credibility. At times, it affirms that some precautions were taken to avoid and mitigate civilian harms, despite clear evidence to the contrary in the coalition's actions. Sometimes, it claimed that 'precision-guided munitions' were used in cases where they did not mitigate the harm to civilians, such as the bombing of crowded civilian markets. Occasionally, the JIAT claims a lack of civilians present but then recommends compensating for losses, or it mentions that all possible precautions were taken, yet these actions were not followed, resulting in clear harm to civilians. The JIAT also inadequately addresses the sensitivity of the timing of some airstrikes, like targeting bridges and fuel stations, which require precautionary considerations regarding the presence of nearby civilians.

In extremely limited cases, it seems that the conclusions reached by JIAT, intentionally or not, acknowledge the coalition's failure to observe precautionary obligations. For example, in the attack on the detention center in Dhamar in 2019, resulting in the death and injury of dozens of detainees, the Joint Incidents Assessment Team claimed, “coalition forces were unaware that one of the buildings was used as a detention center,”. This while the International Committee of the Red Cross had visited the site before the attack and the United Nations Panel of Experts had identified it as a detention center in its 2018 report. Nevertheless, the Joint Team fails to analyze this as a potential failure to comply with precautionary obligations, instead, as usual, affirming that the coalition adhered to international humanitarian law. Another category of incidents where the conclusions of the JIAT are questionable, are incidents where civilian casualties are attributed to a “technical failure”. Technical failures are difficult to assess without transparency of what the failure was exactly, and may well serve as a way to defer from potential breaches of IHL.