Gaza: Children Under Attack? The Value of Evidence in International Criminal Law

In international law, words carry enormous weight, but evidence carries even more. This is why the recent report by the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel deserves attention not so much for the political scope of its accusations, but for its possible legal consequences.

The UN Commission has stated that it has gathered elements documenting serious violations of international humanitarian law against the civilian population, with particular reference to children. Israel has completely rejected the report, calling it biased and lacking credibility.

In such a polarized context, it is essential to distinguish between the political and judicial dimensions. A United Nations report does not constitute a judgment and does not automatically assign criminal or international responsibility. Rather, it is an investigative document that may support subsequent proceedings before competent judicial bodies.

This is precisely how international law functions: accusations must be verified according to rigorous evidentiary standards. Testimonies, satellite images, medical reports, ballistic analyses, digital data, and audiovisual material must be authenticated, contextualized, and compared with other independent sources. Each element must comply with the so-called "chain of custody," ensuring its authenticity, integrity, and reliability.

The UN Commission's report could be relevant in two different forums.

The first is the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which has jurisdiction over disputes between states. In this context, the collected material may contribute to assessing international responsibility arising from violations of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and of international humanitarian law.

The second is the International Criminal Court (ICC), which deals with individual criminal responsibility. In this forum, states are not tried; rather, individuals who may be responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide are prosecuted, provided that the high evidentiary standards required in international criminal proceedings are met.

The protection of minors occupies a central position in international law. The 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires states to ensure enhanced protection for children even during armed conflicts. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977 also provide special protection for civilians and prohibit indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court classifies numerous acts as war crimes, including those that intentionally target civilians, hospitals, schools, humanitarian workers, and protected infrastructure, as well as the recruitment and use of children in armed conflicts.

From a procedural standpoint, however, the law is not based on emotions or propaganda. Even in the face of extremely serious accusations, the principle of the presumption of innocence remains, along with the obligation to establish facts through verifiable evidence subject to adversarial scrutiny.

This is probably the most important aspect of the entire matter. International criminal law does not merely collect accusations; it requires that they be proven according to the standards demanded by competent jurisdictions. Only in this way is it possible to assign individual and international responsibility without turning justice into a political tool.

War inevitably produces a battle on the field of information as well. For this reason, the task of international justice becomes even more delicate: distinguishing facts from narratives, verifying every piece of evidence, and ensuring that any responsibility is established through a fair and independent process.

This is precisely the strength of law: not to replace truth with opinions, but to strive to reach it through evidence, procedural guarantees, and decisions grounded in the law.