SN06493.pdf — page 38

Number 06493, 8 October 2015 38 
guided weapons, minimises collateral damage and the potential 
for civilian casualties. This contrasts sharply with ISIL's brutal 
disregard for human life.154 
Investigating civilian deaths 
The Ministry of Defence says that after an incident in which a civilian 
has been or appears to have been killed by UK forces a full investigation 
is undertaken. If required, a special investigations team is deployed to 
conduct a quick and thorough assessment of the situation. It said these 
reports are not routinely published for reasons of operational security.155 
The Government admits the operating environment limits investigations. 
Defence Minister Mark Francois said of operations in Iraq: “an accurate 
count of ISIL casualties cannot always be made in this type of 
environment.”156 Mr Francois said of operations in Libya in 2011: 
All allegations of civilian casualties involving UK forces are 
thoroughly investigated. However, verification is often hindered 
by the complexity and risk that would be involved in collecting 
robust data. This was particularly the case for operations in Libya, 
where an absence of UK ground forces meant contemporaneous 
verification from within the country was practically impossible.157 
An investigation into the 25 April 2011 in Afghanistan was conducted 
by ISAF in line with ISAF procedures the Government has said. 158 The 
incident was cited in the report by Ben Emmerson, the UN Special 
Rapporteur, who called on the United Kingdom to declassify and 
publish the results of the investigation report.159 The MOD has resisted 
calls to publish the report saying as it was an ISAF investigation, any 
decision on the report’s disclosure sits within the ISAF chain of 
command.160 
Demands for greater transparency about civilian investigations 
Commentators have called for greater transparency about investigations 
into civilian deaths. 
The Defence Committee said it was satisfied that RAF rules of 
engagement provided a high level of assurance that, as far as possible, 
civilian casualties will be avoided. However it added the MOD needs to 
be more open and transparent to debunk myths and counter 
misinformation.161 
The Birmingham Policy Commission observed that a perceived lack of 
transparency over RPA use “heightened concerns, whether justified or 
not, around the legitimacy of its operations.”162 It called on the 
                                                                                             
154  PQ213743, 6 November 2014 
155  Defence Committee, Remote Control: Remotely Piloted Air Systems – current and 
future use: Government response, 22 July 2014, HC 611 2013-14, para 163 
156  PQ 15 October 2014 c210712 
157  HC Deb 31 October 2013 c546W 
158  Defence Committee, Remote Control: Remotely Piloted Air Systems – current and 
future UK use, 25 March 2014, HC 772 2013-14, Ev 1 
159  UN Human Rights Council, A/HRC/25/59, 11 March 2014, para 39 
160  HC Deb 20 March 2014 c700W 
161  Defence Committee, Remote Control: Remotely Piloted Air Systems – current and 
future use, 25 March 2014, HC 772 2013-14, para 66-67 
162  Birmingham Policy Commission, The security impact of drones: challenges and 
opportunities for the UK, October 2014, p47