Comment

Patten was invited while the UN investigative envoy was blocked. Her report and cites israeli statements has no legal validity. Patten herself said this in the article you linked earlier which you hopefully read.

The UN report was published after Pattens report. If Pattens report contained evidence the UN investigative envoy would have cited it.

Once again, the UN confirmed there is no evidence.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Carrolade@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
She was the UN investigative envoy. Unless you can find me an official statement talking about a more recent one that was blocked? I haven’t seen anything about one yet.

source
- JonsJava@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  sadly, you’re wrong in this instance.
  
  The mission made up of Ms. Patten and nine experts – which was not investigative in nature –… (emphasis in original news brief).
  
  According to the actual report:
  
  The present report is submitted to the United Nations Secretary-General pursuant to the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict (SRSG-SVC), outlined by the Security Council in resolutions 1888 (2009), 1960 (2010), 2106 (2013), 2331 (2016), and 2467 (2019). This report contains the findings of the mission of Special Representative, Ms. Pramila Patten to Israel
  
  (emphasis added)
  
  So, she wasn’t a no-name 3rd party, but wasn’t an investigative envoy.
  
  source
- Linkerbaan@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  No she was not.
  
  You literally linked it yourself Read it. You don’t want a highlighted image right?
  
  source