This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34444053

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Afghan conflict: Is it ever legal to bomb a hospital? Afghan conflict: What we know about Kunduz hospital bombing
(2 days later)
International charity Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) has demanded an independent international investigation into the bombing of its hospital in the city of Kunduz in northern Afghanistan. International charity Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) has demanded an independent international investigation into the US bombing of its hospital in the city of Kunduz in northern Afghanistan.
At least 22 people, including MSF staff, were killed in Saturday's early morning attack. MSF says dozens were injured and the hospital severely damaged by a series of air strikes lasting more than an hour. At least 22 people, including MSF staff, were killed in Saturday's early morning attack. MSF says dozens were injured and the hospital severely damaged.
The charity blames US-led Nato forces. But Afghan government officials have implied the hospital was being used by the Taliban for military purposes. The US is investigating the incident.
Who is saying what?Who is saying what?
The Afghan defence ministry said "armed terrorists" were using the hospital "as a position to target Afghan forces and civilians". MSF says the warring sides were well aware of the hospital's location in Kunduz, and that the bombing went on for a more than an hour despite repeated calls to US and Afghan military officials in Kabul and Washington to call off the strikes.
But MSF says the warring sides were well aware of the hospital's location, and that the bombing went on for an hour despite repeated calls to US and Afghan military officials in Kabul and Washington to call off the strikes. The Afghan defence ministry said "armed terrorists" were using the hospital "as a position to target Afghan forces and civilians". MSF has denied this: "Not a single member of our staff reported any fighting inside the hospital compound prior to the US air strike on Saturday morning."
MSF also denied there were any militants in the hospital at the time of the strikes and said the attack amounted to a war crime: "Not a single member of our staff reported any fighting inside the hospital compound prior to the US air strike on Saturday morning." The US military has changed its account of how the air strike came about. Statements initially said US forces had come under fire, but then said air strikes were requested by Afghan forces under Taliban fire.
On Monday, the US military changed its account of how the air strike came about, saying it was requested by Afghan forces under Taliban fire. The US military chief in Afghanistan Gen John Campbell has admitted "the decision to provide aerial fires was a US decision, made within the US chain of command".
The US commander in Afghanistan, Gen John Campbell, also said no US forces had been under fire at the time, reversing an earlier statement, and acknowledged that civilians were accidentally hit. He told a Senate committee in Washington that the hospital was "mistakenly struck" and promised a "thorough, objective and transparent" investigation.
The US had previously said insurgents had been firing at American personnel. What does MSF want to happen now?
MSF says that statements from the Afghan and US forces imply they worked together to deliberately target the hospital - and amount to an admission of a war crime.
The organisation's president Joanne Liu says they "cannot rely on internal military investigations by the US, Nato and Afghan forces".
She has called on the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission (IHFFC) - a never-used body established in 1991 under the Geneva Conventions - to investigate.
The IHFFC is "the only permanent body set up specifically to investigate violations of international humanitarian law", Ms Liu said, and she called on the commission's signatory states to activate an inquiry.
However, according to the IHFFC provisions, an inquiry needs the specific endorsement of the parties to the conflict.
Neither the US nor Afghanistan is a signatory, and therefore they would have to issue separate declarations of consent to the investigation of the Kunduz bombing.
What constitutes a war crime?
War crimes are acts that constitute a grave breach of the laws of war. At the heart of the concept is the idea that an individual can be held responsible for the actions of a country or that nation's soldiers.
According to the International Criminal Court (ICC), war crimes can include:
What do international rules say about the bombing of hospitals?What do international rules say about the bombing of hospitals?
International humanitarian law bans any attack on patients and medical personnel - indeed, any attack on medical facilities, which are zones that must be respected under the rules of war.International humanitarian law bans any attack on patients and medical personnel - indeed, any attack on medical facilities, which are zones that must be respected under the rules of war.
Even if combatants, such as the Taliban, take refuge in them, they should not be attacked.Even if combatants, such as the Taliban, take refuge in them, they should not be attacked.
Under rules established by the International Criminal Court, any such incident would probably result in too high a number of civilian casualties - what is called the rule of proportionality. Under rules established by the ICC, any such incident would probably result in too high a number of civilian casualties - what is called the rule of proportionality.
According to Human Rights Watch, "given the hospital's protected status and the large numbers of civilians and medical personnel in the facility, attacking the hospital would still likely have been an unlawfully disproportionate attack, causing greater harm to civilians and civilian structures than any immediate military gain.According to Human Rights Watch, "given the hospital's protected status and the large numbers of civilians and medical personnel in the facility, attacking the hospital would still likely have been an unlawfully disproportionate attack, causing greater harm to civilians and civilian structures than any immediate military gain.
"The laws of war require that even if military forces misuse a hospital to deploy able-bodied combatants or weapons, the attacking force must issue a warning to cease this misuse, setting a reasonable time limit for it to end, and attacking only after such a warning has gone unheeded," the group said in a statement."The laws of war require that even if military forces misuse a hospital to deploy able-bodied combatants or weapons, the attacking force must issue a warning to cease this misuse, setting a reasonable time limit for it to end, and attacking only after such a warning has gone unheeded," the group said in a statement.
And under international humanitarian law rules, "in the conduct of military operations, constant care must be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects". Under international humanitarian law "constant care must be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects".
Those same rules also state that "the parties to the conflict must take all feasible precautions to protect the civilian population and civilian objects under their control against the effects of attacks". Medical units, the rules say, "must be respected and protected in all circumstances", although "they lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy".
And on the subject of medical units, they say that "units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances". However, "they lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy".
Have there been other such bombings elsewhere?Have there been other such bombings elsewhere?
In February 2009, nine people were killed by shells which hit a hospital in a rebel-held area of north-east Sri Lanka.In February 2009, nine people were killed by shells which hit a hospital in a rebel-held area of north-east Sri Lanka.
The hospital, in the town of Puthukkudiyiruppu, Mullaitivu district, was hit three times in 24 hours, and shells were said to have hit a crowded paediatric unit.The hospital, in the town of Puthukkudiyiruppu, Mullaitivu district, was hit three times in 24 hours, and shells were said to have hit a crowded paediatric unit.
Sri Lanka's army denied it was behind the shelling. It accused separatist Tamil Tiger rebels of using civilians as human shields.Sri Lanka's army denied it was behind the shelling. It accused separatist Tamil Tiger rebels of using civilians as human shields.
The International Committee of the Red Cross at the time called the strikes "significant breaches of international humanitarian law".The International Committee of the Red Cross at the time called the strikes "significant breaches of international humanitarian law".
Last year, at least five people were killed and 70 injured by an Israeli strike on a hospital in Gaza.Last year, at least five people were killed and 70 injured by an Israeli strike on a hospital in Gaza.
Doctors at the al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir al-Balah in the central Gaza Strip say several Israeli tank shells hit the hospital's reception, intensive care unit and operating theatres.Doctors at the al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir al-Balah in the central Gaza Strip say several Israeli tank shells hit the hospital's reception, intensive care unit and operating theatres.
The Israeli military said it had targeted a cache of anti-tank missiles in the hospital's "immediate vicinity".The Israeli military said it had targeted a cache of anti-tank missiles in the hospital's "immediate vicinity".
"Civilian casualties are a tragic inevitability of [Hamas'] brutal and systematic exploitation of homes, hospitals and mosques in Gaza," it said in a statement."Civilian casualties are a tragic inevitability of [Hamas'] brutal and systematic exploitation of homes, hospitals and mosques in Gaza," it said in a statement.
Has something like this happened before in Afghanistan?Has something like this happened before in Afghanistan?
Experts point out that this is not the first time international humanitarian law may have been violated in Afghanistan's current conflict.Experts point out that this is not the first time international humanitarian law may have been violated in Afghanistan's current conflict.
At least 18,000 civilians have died in 14 years of war. Hundreds of people have been killed in coalition raids and bombings - although many more have been killed in militant attacks.At least 18,000 civilians have died in 14 years of war. Hundreds of people have been killed in coalition raids and bombings - although many more have been killed in militant attacks.
At times, foreign and local troops have entered medical facilities to arrest people.At times, foreign and local troops have entered medical facilities to arrest people.
But because of its long-term implications on medical assistance, the Kunduz incident, in the words of one ICRC official, ranks as an especially serious one.But because of its long-term implications on medical assistance, the Kunduz incident, in the words of one ICRC official, ranks as an especially serious one.