Human Rights Watch continues to spread, without presenting convincing proof, accusations of use of cluster bombs by the Russian Federation in the conflict with Georgia. HRW published two reports which supposedly show evidence of such use. As argued and documented here, that evidence does not hold up.

HRW has now issued a ‘clarification’, and admits that the supposed evidence in one of the two reports is false.

As we had shown, objects in pictures in the report were misidentified as cluster ammunition of Russian origin, while a comparison with HRW’s own cluster ammunition chart (pdf) evidently showed that the objects were a M85 submunition of ‘western’ origin. Additionally the Georgian government admitted that it had purchased GRADLAR 160 mm rocket systems with M85 submunition from Israel and used these in the conflict over South Ossetia.

HRW continues to insist that the ‘evidence’ in the first report it issues is correct. There is good reason to believe that this is false.

The HRW ‘clarification’ is quite vague:

On August 21, 2008, Human Rights Watch reported a series of attacks with cluster munitions around four towns and villages in Georgia’s Gori district. Human Rights Watch attributed all the strikes to Russian forces, but upon further investigation has concluded that the origin of the cluster munitions found on August 20 in two of the villages – Shindisi and Pkhvenisi – cannot yet be determined.

Human Rights Watch’s finding that Shindisi and Pkhvenisi were struck by Russian attacks on August 8 was based on the accounts of nearly a dozen witnesses, interviewed separately, who said that air strikes on Georgian armored units in the area were followed by extensive cluster munition strikes. There were no Russian ground forces reported in the area at that stage of the conflict. 

Human Rights Watch researchers in Shindisi on August 20 found unexploded cluster submunitions, commonly known as Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions (DPICMs), and initially identified them as Russian. However, those submunitions were later identified by the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment (NDRE), based on Human Rights Watch’s photographs, as M85 DPICMs, which have not been reported to be part of Russia’s arsenal. NDRE is a government-sponsored institution that does research and development for the Norwegian Armed Forces and is recognized for its expertise in cluster munitions.

To say the source of the strike ‘cannot yet be determined’ when Georgia is the only party in the conflict that owned the weapon in question is, in my view, disingenuous. The chain of events described by the witnesses is consistent with an attack by the RF army against Georgian troops in Shindisi and a, probably miss-adjusted, counterattack by Georgian rocket artillery.

HRW also continues to claim that a different incident was caused by Russian clusterbombs:

This clarification does not affect Human Rights Watch’s findings on August 15 that Russia used aerial cluster bombs to attack the village of Ruisi and the town of Gori on August 12. Eleven civilians were killed and dozens more injured in these two locations. In Ruisi, Human Rights Watch researchers found submunitions that they identified as PTAB 2.5M, which are known to be in Russia’s arsenal. Human Rights Watch based its findings on visual identification of the submunitions and the cluster bomb carrier in Ruisi, craters typical of submunition impact, and accounts from Georgian victims in both towns, as well as doctors and military personnel. The Russian government has yet to adequately respond to these findings.

In the August 15 report "Human Rights Watch researchers found submunitions that they identified as PTAB 2.5M".

How believable is that identification when the (same?) Human Rights Watch researchers, as now admitted,  misidentified submunition in the August 21 report? Has HRW rechecked the identification capabilities of its researchers after those have been wrong?

While the ‘clarification’ states: "In Ruisi, Human Rights Watch researchers found submunitions that they identified as PTAB 2.5M", the original report only stated: "Photographic evidence on file with Human Rights Watch shows a civilian in Ruisi holding a PTAB submunition …."  Which of these statements is correct? Have HRW researchers identified alleged PTAB submunition in Ruisi through pictures or through direct inspection as only claimed now?

The "cluster bomb carrier in Ruisi" as mentioned and shown in a photo within the August 15 report is definitely not a Russian RBU-250 gravity bomb as HRW now again claims. The diameter of the object in the photo is only roughly half the 325 mm diameter an RBU-250 has. The fin configuration of the debris HRW shows is inconsistent with a gravity bomb, but consistent with a tube launched missile like the ones used in Georgia’s GRADAL system. (For evidence see the pictures in our prior critic.)

HRW issued a vague ‘clarification’ over one of its reports after professionals pointed out that HRW researchers have erred in the identification of submunition. HRW continues to hold up another report that is based HRW researchers identification of submunition and on photos of debris that is evidently not from the ammunition type HRW claims it is from.

When will HRW issue another clarification to clean up its mistakes in the August 15 report?

When will HRW issue an apology to the Russian Federation for the evidently false claims it made?