"UN commissions of inquiry can name crimes but cannot punish them." Critically examine this statement in the context of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

UN Commissions of Inquiry (COIs) are fact-finding bodies of the Human Rights Council, not courts. In October 2026 the COI on the Occupied Palestinian Territory reported to the UN General Assembly. It is chaired by India's Justice S. Muralidhar. It found that Israeli forces continued genocidal acts after the "so-called ceasefire" [1][2]. The statement is largely true, but naming a crime is often the first step towards punishing it.

Why the statement holds: limits of COIs

• No binding force: Findings rest on "reasonable grounds", not proof "beyond reasonable doubt". The COI found genocide in Gaza in 2025 [3], yet more than 75,000 Palestinians have been killed since 7 October 2023 [8].
• No access: Israel does not cooperate with the COI. The commission depends on remote interviews and documents, which weakens independent verification.
• Political deadlock: The Security Council veto blocks sanctions or a referral to the ICC. Israel is also not a party to the Rome Statute.
• Violence changes form: In the West Bank, the Hebron crackdown displaced thousands, and UN rights chief Türk warned of ethnic cleansing [2].

Why naming still matters

• Evidence for courts: COI records support the cases on state responsibility (ICJ) and individual guilt (ICC). In South Africa v. Israel, the ICJ ordered provisional measures in 2024 [5].
• Credibility through balance: In 2024 the COI found that both Hamas and Israel committed war crimes [4]. This weakens the charge of bias.
• Using the General Assembly: The Assembly demanded a ceasefire 149–12–19 (June 2025) [6]. At an Emergency Special Session in May 2024 it backed Palestine's UN membership 143–9–25 [7], working around the veto.
• Legal duties for other states: Article I of the Genocide Convention obliges all parties to prevent genocide. Once credible findings exist, states that keep supplying arms or doing business as usual face legal and reputational risk.

COIs write the first draft of accountability: they name the crimes, and courts and states must act on them. The way forward is to:

• set up a standing evidence mechanism that links COI findings to the ICJ and ICC;
• use "Uniting for Peace" and restrain the veto in atrocity cases;
• build monitoring into ceasefires.

India backs a two-state solution, and an Indian jurist leads this COI. India can support General Assembly measures on aid access and protecting civilians. This would uphold the rule of law and SDG 16.