October 7 at Three Years: The Unfinished Work of International Legal Accountability
Introduction
As the third anniversary of October 7 approaches, the legal response to the 2023 attack remains incomplete. International investigations have produced a substantial evidentiary record, United Nations bodies have legally characterized serious conduct, and criminal proceedings have been initiated in international and domestic forums. Yet the principal publicly documented accountability mechanisms have not produced a completed criminal judgment against a living individual for participation in the attack.
On 7 October 2023, Hamas’s military wing and other Palestinian armed groups entered southern Israel from Gaza and attacked civilian communities, military positions, the Supernova music festival, and other locations. A later report of the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry recorded that 251 people were abducted to Gaza (Independent International Commission of Inquiry, 2024a).
The Commission found reasonable grounds to conclude that members of Hamas’s military wing and other Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes including intentionally directing attacks against civilians, murder, torture and cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, destruction of civilian property, and hostage-taking (Independent International Commission of Inquiry, 2024b). These findings are legally significant, but they do not amount to determinations of individual guilt after trial.
The International Criminal Court moved further toward individual attribution. On 20 May 2024, the Prosecutor applied for arrest warrants against Yahya Sinwar, Ismail Haniyeh, and Mohammed Deif for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed from at least 7 October 2023. Haniyeh and Sinwar died before warrants were issued against them, and the respective applications were withdrawn (ICC, 2024a).
Pre-Trial Chamber I issued a warrant for Deif on 21 November 2024 after finding reasonable grounds to believe that he bore criminal responsibility for alleged crimes including murder, extermination, torture, rape and other forms of sexual violence, hostage-taking, and cruel treatment. The Chamber terminated the proceeding on 26 February 2025 after the Prosecution reported that it had obtained sufficient and reliable information confirming his death (ICC, 2024b; ICC, 2025).
Israel’s domestic accountability track developed along a different institutional path. In May 2026, Israel enacted legislation governing prosecutions arising from offenses committed during the October 7–10 attacks and subsequent offenses against persons abducted to Gaza. Covered indictments are to be heard before a military court seated in Jerusalem (Knesset, 2026).
The legislation permits prosecution under applicable Israeli law, including the Law on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 5710-1950, the Penal Law, and the Counter-Terrorism Law. The availability of those offenses as charging bases does not establish that their legal elements have been proved against any particular defendant.
Three years on, the central accountability problem is no longer simply the existence of evidence about what occurred. The more difficult task is converting that record into criminal responsibility established against living defendants through admissible evidence, custody, trial, judgment, and appellate review.
The focus here is individual criminal accountability for the October 7 attack and hostage-related offenses. The broader legal controversies arising from the subsequent hostilities in Gaza fall outside that inquiry except where they affect the institutions responsible for those accountability processes.
1. What Happened on October 7, 2023?
On 7 October 2023, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’s military wing, led a coordinated assault from Gaza into southern Israel. Other Palestinian armed groups participated, together with people from Gaza whose organizational affiliation could not always be established. Attackers entered civilian communities, military positions, the Supernova music festival area, and other locations in southern Israel (Independent International Commission of Inquiry, 2024a).
Civilians were deliberately attacked at multiple sites, while other people were killed, injured, captured, and transferred to Gaza. The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry later recorded that 251 people—226 civilians and 25 members of the Israeli security forces—were abducted on October 7. They included women, children, older persons, and non-Israeli nationals (Independent International Commission of Inquiry, 2024b).
The conduct examined by international bodies extended beyond killings and abductions. The Commission found reasonable grounds to conclude that members of Hamas’s military wing and other Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes including intentionally directing attacks against civilians, murder, torture and cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, destruction of civilian property, and hostage-taking. Its later examination of captivity found that Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes including torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, rape and other sexual violence (Independent International Commission of Inquiry, 2024a, 2024b).
The political objectives attributed to the attack are separate from the legality of particular acts. Customary international humanitarian law requires parties to distinguish between civilians and persons who may lawfully be targeted; attacks may not be directed against civilians (ICRC, 2005, Rule 1). An asserted political or military objective does not displace that protection. Criminal accountability depends instead on the acts committed, the elements of the relevant offense, and the responsibility that can lawfully be attributed to particular individuals.
2. What the Legal Record Has Established
By early October 2026, several institutions and organizations had examined October 7 under different mandates. The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry produced factual and legal findings concerning the attack and the treatment of hostages. The Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict conducted a separate verification mission, while the International Criminal Court addressed evidence through the Prosecutor’s warrant applications and decisions of Pre-Trial Chamber I. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International carried out additional nongovernmental investigations.
These processes do not have equivalent legal effects. A commission of inquiry can investigate conduct, identify patterns, make legal assessments, and recommend accountability measures. Nongovernmental organizations can document violations and offer legal conclusions but exercise no criminal jurisdiction. An ICC Pre-Trial Chamber performs a judicial function, although an arrest-warrant determination remains preliminary and is governed by Article 58 of the Rome Statute rather than the standard required for conviction (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 58).
War crimes and crimes against humanity must also be kept analytically distinct. Before the ICC, a war-crime charge must satisfy the elements of the particular offense and the required nexus with an armed conflict. Article 7 of the Rome Statute requires a specified act to form part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, with knowledge of the attack. The Statute further defines such an attack as a course of conduct involving multiple commission of Article 7 acts pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy (Rome Statute, 1998, arts. 7–8).
Independent investigations have reached serious conclusions without acquiring the authority of judicial judgments. Human Rights Watch concluded that the planned murder of civilians and hostage-taking formed part of a widespread attack directed against a civilian population and amounted to crimes against humanity, alongside numerous war crimes (Human Rights Watch, 2024). Amnesty International later concluded that many documented violations by Palestinian armed groups constituted war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder and torture (Amnesty International, 2025). Such findings contribute to the evidentiary and legal record, but they do not establish criminal guilt.
2.1 Sexual Violence: Evidence and Limits
Conflict-related sexual violence presents a particularly difficult evidentiary record. Special Representative Pramila Patten led a UN mission to Israel and the occupied West Bank between 29 January and 14 February 2024 to gather, analyze, and verify information concerning alleged sexual violence during the October 7 attacks and their aftermath. The mission operated under the UN conflict-related sexual violence mandate and was not a criminal investigation (Office of the SRSG-SVC, 2024).
The mission found reasonable grounds to believe that rape and gang rape occurred during the attacks in at least three locations: the Nova music festival site and its surroundings, Road 232, and Kibbutz Re’im. It also identified circumstantial information indicating possible other forms of sexual violence, including sexualized torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (Office of the SRSG-SVC, 2024).
A different evidentiary formulation applied to hostages. The mission found clear and convincing information that some hostages taken to Gaza had experienced conflict-related sexual violence while in captivity. It also found reasonable grounds, at the time of the mission, to believe that such violence might be continuing against people still held in Gaza (Office of the SRSG-SVC, 2024).
Significant limitations accompanied those conclusions. Despite efforts to obtain first-hand testimony, the mission did not interview any survivor-victim of sexual violence from the October 7 attack itself. It encountered limited forensic material, dispersed evidence, difficulties linking images to identifiable victims or perpetrators, and other problems resulting from the way crime scenes and bodies had been handled. Two widely reported allegations concerning Kibbutz Be’eri were found to be unfounded, while other allegations could not be verified. An inability to verify an allegation, however, is not a finding that the underlying event did not occur.
Later UN reporting preserved the distinction between evidence of patterns and proof against particular defendants. The Secretary-General’s 2025 report listed Hamas among parties credibly suspected of committing or being responsible for patterns of rape or other forms of sexual violence in situations of armed conflict (United Nations Secretary-General, 2025). The 2026 report stated that Hamas had not recognized incidents or taken accountability measures and that the United Nations had received no information that Israeli authorities had indicted detained Palestinians accused of involvement in the October 7 attacks specifically on sexual-violence charges (United Nations Secretary-General, 2026). That formulation does not establish the absolute absence of such proceedings.
2.2 Fact-Finding Is Not Criminal Adjudication
A substantial factual record does not itself determine individual criminal guilt. The Commission of Inquiry may investigate violations, assess their legal character, preserve information, and identify conduct requiring further accountability measures. Its findings cannot convict an accused or replace the evidentiary process of a competent criminal court.
The distinction is particularly important when evidence of an offense is separated from evidence against a named defendant. Proof that civilians were intentionally killed, hostages were taken, or captives were tortured does not by itself establish who committed the offense or who bears responsibility through ordering, assistance, contribution, command responsibility, or another recognized mode of liability. Which forms of responsibility are available, and what their elements require, depend on the law governing the particular court.
The Rome Statute illustrates how evidentiary thresholds change as proceedings advance. Article 58 permits an arrest warrant where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person committed a crime within the Court’s jurisdiction and the remaining statutory conditions are satisfied. Article 66 requires the Trial Chamber to be convinced of the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt before entering a conviction (Rome Statute, 1998, arts. 58, 66).
The October 7 record consequently extends well beyond untested allegations, but it remains short of completed adjudication. Investigative bodies and judicial institutions have reached conclusions under the standards applicable to their respective mandates. Criminal responsibility still requires a viable case against an identifiable accused, tested under the procedural and evidentiary rules of the court exercising jurisdiction.
3. The ICC Cases That Ended Before Trial
On 20 May 2024, ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan applied to Pre-Trial Chamber I for arrest warrants against Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh. The Prosecutor alleged that they bore responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of Israel and the State of Palestine from at least 7 October 2023. The applications included allegations of extermination, murder, and hostage-taking; allegations of rape and other sexual violence, torture, cruel treatment, other inhumane acts, and outrages upon personal dignity were also advanced in connection with the treatment of captives (ICC Prosecutor, 2024).
The proceedings against Haniyeh and Sinwar ended before the Chamber issued warrants against them. Following confirmation of Haniyeh’s death, the Chamber allowed the Prosecutor to withdraw the application concerning him on 9 August 2024. The corresponding application against Sinwar was withdrawn on 25 October after confirmation of his death. Neither became the subject of an ICC arrest warrant (ICC, 2024a).
Deif’s proceedings advanced further. On 21 November 2024, Pre-Trial Chamber I issued a warrant after finding reasonable grounds to believe that he bore responsibility for the crimes against humanity of murder, extermination, torture, and rape and other forms of sexual violence. The warrant also concerned the war crimes of murder, cruel treatment, torture, hostage-taking, outrages upon personal dignity, and rape and other forms of sexual violence (ICC, 2024b).
The warrant was not a finding of guilt. Deif was never brought before the Court, no confirmation-of-charges hearing occurred, and the allegations were never tested at trial. Of the three Hamas leaders named in the May 2024 applications, he was the only one for whom Pre-Trial Chamber I issued an arrest warrant.
On 26 February 2025, the Chamber terminated the proceeding after the Prosecution reported that it had obtained sufficient and reliable information confirming Deif’s death (ICC, 2025). His proceeding ended, but the wider Situation in the State of Palestine did not. The ICC investigation continues to encompass alleged crimes connected with the escalation of hostilities and violence since October 7. Further cases remain legally possible, although the Court’s public record does not establish that another warrant application concerning a surviving Hamas suspect is presently before the Chamber.
4. Israel’s 2026 Special Prosecution Regime
Israel adopted a dedicated statutory framework for October 7 prosecutions in May 2026. On 11 May, the Knesset approved the Law on Prosecution for the Events of the Massacre on October 7, 2023 (Simchat Torah Massacre), 5786-2026, by 93 votes with no opposing votes. The legislation regulates criminal proceedings arising from offenses associated with the attacks and subsequent conduct against abductees (Knesset, 2026a).
The regime covers offenses committed between 7 and 10 October 2023 and later offenses committed against people abducted from Israel to Gaza, including deceased abductees. Indictments within its scope are to be submitted to a military court established under the Defense Regulations and seated in Jerusalem. The 2026 statute supplies special procedural arrangements for these proceedings while relying on offenses available under existing Israeli criminal law (Knesset, 2026a; Library of Congress, 2026).
Possible charges include offenses under the Crime of Genocide (Prevention and Punishment) Law, 5710-1950, the Penal Law, and the Counter-Terrorism Law. Knesset materials also identify offenses concerning state sovereignty or integrity, causing war, assistance to the enemy in wartime, murder, and other serious crimes. The legislature justified the special procedural regime in part by the scale of the evidentiary task, including numerous crime scenes, suspects, victims, and evidence collected under wartime conditions (Knesset, 2026b).
The procedural arrangements differ from ordinary criminal practice in several respects while retaining specified safeguards. The law provides for multiple judicial panels and appellate review, regulates representation of defendants, and generally applies the rules of criminal procedure and evidence used by civilian courts subject to special provisions. A panel may depart from those rules for recorded reasons when it considers the departure necessary to clarify the truth and administer justice, provided that the fairness of the proceedings is not significantly impaired (Knesset, 2026a).
The statute also addresses victims’ rights, public hearings, audiovisual documentation, broadcasting, videoconference appearances, detention after indictment, court security, and periodic reporting to the Knesset. During the legislative process, organizations assisting October 7 victims raised concerns about the effect of broadcasting on victim privacy, leading the committee to refine the arrangements for public access. The law further contemplates regulations governing the execution of a death sentence where such a sentence has lawfully been imposed (Knesset, 2026a, 2026c).
The inclusion of genocide among the available offenses does not establish that the October 7 attack legally constituted genocide, still less that any particular accused is guilty of that crime. Israel’s genocide legislation gives domestic effect to the Genocide Convention, under which genocide requires one of the enumerated acts to be committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such (Genocide Convention, 1948, art. II). A prosecution would still have to prove the applicable statutory elements against the individual defendant.
4.1 The Gap Between a Court and a Case
The enactment of the 2026 law did not immediately place completed prosecutions before the military court. During the legislative process in March, military officials estimated that preparations for implementation would take about a year. On 2 June 2026, the Israeli government approved more than NIS 1 billion for the period 2026–2029 to fund court premises, prosecution and military facilities, personnel, information systems, communications, broadcasting, and related infrastructure (Knesset, 2026b; Ministry of Defense, 2026).
By 2 October 2026, official public announcements continued to concern implementation and institutional preparation rather than the commencement of the first trial under the special regime. They document funding, facilities, prosecution capacity, staffing, and other arrangements necessary for future proceedings. The absence of a publicly announced indictment or trial does not establish that no non-public prosecutorial step has occurred.
The distinction is legally significant. Legislation can establish jurisdiction, procedure, institutional capacity, and available charges, but adjudicative accountability requires proceedings against identifiable defendants in which evidence is presented and tested before the court. Judgments, sentences, and appellate review follow only if those cases move through the criminal process.
Israel has thus supplemented its ordinary criminal arrangements with a statutory regime designed specifically for prosecutions arising from October 7. Its eventual contribution to accountability will depend on the cases conducted under that regime, including the treatment of evidence, defense rights, victim participation, judicial reasoning, and appellate scrutiny.
5. The Problem of Individual Criminal Attribution
The evidentiary record concerning October 7 is extensive, but criminal responsibility turns on what particular evidence can establish about particular defendants. The UN mission on conflict-related sexual violence reviewed more than 5,000 photographs and approximately 50 hours of video footage, together with witness accounts, interviews with released hostages, and other documentary material (Office of the SRSG-SVC, 2024). Such material may establish events and recurring patterns without identifying the person legally responsible for every offense.
Emergency conditions complicated the preservation and reconstruction of evidence. The same UN mission recorded dispersed crime scenes, limited professionally gathered forensic material, loss or alteration of evidence, severe damage to bodies, and the prioritization of rescue, identification, and burial. Relevant material was also held by different authorities, making links between particular individuals and specific images, recordings, or locations harder to establish (Office of the SRSG-SVC, 2024).
The effect of these limitations depends on the allegation being proved. Video evidence may establish that a killing occurred while leaving the perpetrator’s identity uncertain. Testimony may establish mistreatment in captivity without identifying everyone who participated. Sexual violence, ballistics, precise causes of death, and offenses reconstructed from incomplete forensic records can present additional attribution problems.
International criminal law also recognizes forms of responsibility beyond physical perpetration. Article 25 of the Rome Statute addresses commission, ordering, soliciting or inducing, aiding or assisting, and specified forms of contribution to crimes committed by a group. Article 28 establishes separate conditions for the responsibility of military commanders and other superiors (Rome Statute, 1998, arts. 25, 28).
A senior-level prosecution may accordingly turn on evidence of orders, assistance, authority, knowledge, contribution to criminal conduct, or failure to exercise required control. Each route has distinct elements. Domestic courts must apply the forms of responsibility recognized by the law governing their own proceedings rather than importing the Rome Statute automatically.
The ability to place an accused before the court creates another obstacle. Article 63 of the Rome Statute establishes the general rule that the accused must be present during trial (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 63). An arrest warrant may advance proceedings substantially, but it does not itself produce a trial. The deaths of Haniyeh, Sinwar, and Deif prevented the ICC proceedings concerning those three Hamas leaders from reaching adjudication.
Attribution and custody are thus separate parts of the accountability problem. Investigators may possess strong evidence that crimes occurred while lacking sufficient evidence against a particular living suspect. Prosecutors may also establish grounds for charges or an arrest warrant without being able to bring the accused before the relevant court.
6. U.S. Charges and the Separate Role of the ICJ
The principal U.S. prosecutions connected with October 7 have proceeded under federal criminal and counterterrorism law. In September 2024, the Department of Justice unsealed charges against six senior Hamas leaders: Ismail Haniyeh, Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, Marwan Issa, Khaled Meshaal, and Ali Baraka. The allegations included conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals, material-support offenses, terrorism-financing conduct, sanctions violations, and other federal crimes associated with Hamas activity that included the October 7 attack (U.S. Department of Justice, 2024).
These are domestic criminal proceedings rather than prosecutions under the Rome Statute for war crimes or crimes against humanity. The charges must be proved under the federal offenses invoked by prosecutors, together with the jurisdictional, evidentiary, and procedural rules applicable in United States courts.
A separate federal case concerns Mahmoud Amin Ya’qub Al-Muhtadi. U.S. authorities arrested him in Louisiana in October 2025, and the Department of Justice subsequently confirmed that he had been indicted for alleged involvement in the October 7 attack (U.S. Department of Justice, 2025a, 2025b). The original complaint alleged that he was affiliated with the National Resistance Brigades, the military wing of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, armed himself, gathered others, crossed into Israel, and used a phone that connected with a cellular tower near Kfar Aza. These remain allegations rather than findings of guilt.
The U.S. cases demonstrate that accountability for October 7 is not confined to Israel or the ICC. Domestic courts may exercise jurisdiction over conduct committed abroad where national legislation supplies the necessary legal basis. Such prosecutions remain governed by domestic criminal law even when some of the underlying conduct is also relevant to international criminal law.
The International Court of Justice occupies a different legal field. In Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), South Africa alleges violations by Israel of obligations under the Genocide Convention arising from conduct in Gaza. The proceeding concerns the international responsibility of a state.
Article 34(1) of the ICJ Statute provides that only states may be parties in cases before the Court (ICJ Statute, 1945, art. 34). The ICJ cannot convict Hamas members, determine their individual criminal guilt, or impose criminal sentences for October 7. State responsibility before the ICJ and individual criminal responsibility before the ICC or domestic courts are separate legal inquiries governed by different jurisdictional bases, standards, and remedies.
7. Victims, Fair Trial, and the Meaning of Accountability
Different accountability mechanisms serve different functions for victims. Official fact-finding can preserve evidence, document patterns, and establish institutional findings within the mandate of the body concerned. Independent organizations may add further documentation and legal analysis. Criminal proceedings perform a different task by determining whether the prosecution has established the responsibility of a particular accused through a process in which the evidence can be contested.
Victims have formal participatory rights before the ICC. Article 68(3) of the Rome Statute permits them to present their views and concerns at appropriate stages where their personal interests are affected, provided that participation remains consistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial. The ICC also provides procedures through which victims connected with the Situation in the State of Palestine may seek participation in proceedings concerning particular suspects (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 68; ICC, n.d.).
Participation does not itself amount to reparations. Article 75 authorizes the ICC to establish principles relating to reparations and to make orders against a convicted person. The Court’s information for victims in the Palestine situation likewise links reparations to a conviction (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 75; ICC, n.d.). Because the proceedings concerning Haniyeh, Sinwar, and Deif ended without convictions, they produced no conviction-based reparations orders against those men.
Israel’s 2026 regime places victims within a different procedural structure. The legislation addresses public hearings, audiovisual records, publication of proceedings, and the privacy interests of victims. Victims may object to publication of hearing material, and the court must consider relevant privacy interests when deciding whether recordings should be released (Library of Congress, 2026).
Fair-trial guarantees are part of the legal framework governing criminal accountability. Israel ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 3 October 1991 (United Nations Treaty Collection, n.d.). Article 14 protects the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law and sets out specific guarantees for persons facing criminal charges (ICCPR, 1966, art. 14).
The Israeli statute contains additional procedural rules for the October 7 cases. It addresses defense representation, appellate review, detention following indictment, videoconference participation, and departures from ordinary procedural and evidentiary rules subject to safeguards concerning fairness. It also contains provisions relevant to appellate treatment and implementation where a death sentence is imposed (Knesset, 2026; Library of Congress, 2026).
The practical significance of these provisions will emerge through actual proceedings. Access to evidence, examination of witnesses, treatment of sensitive testimony, protection of victim privacy, defense rights, judicial reasoning, and appellate review will determine how statutory safeguards function in individual cases. Article 14 of the ICCPR supplies an international human-rights standard relevant to that assessment.
The principal mechanisms have reached different procedural stages. The Al-Muhtadi prosecution advanced to arrest and indictment in the United States; the ICC proceedings against Haniyeh, Sinwar, and Deif ended before trial; and Israel’s special regime remained in the implementation phase by early October 2026. The unresolved work lies chiefly in trials capable of producing legally sustainable findings of individual responsibility and, where applicable, appellate review and conviction-dependent remedies.
Also read
Conclusion
As the third anniversary of October 7 approaches, the legal response has moved well beyond the initial task of documenting the attack. UN mechanisms and independent organizations have assembled substantial records of alleged violations, the ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Mohammed Deif, U.S. prosecutors have brought criminal proceedings connected with October 7, and Israel has enacted a dedicated framework for large-scale prosecutions.
Those developments represent different stages and forms of accountability. Fact-finding creates an evidentiary and legal record. An arrest warrant reflects a preliminary judicial threshold. An indictment places criminal allegations before a court. Legislation supplies jurisdictional and procedural machinery for future prosecutions.
Across the principal proceedings examined here, however, the process had not reached a final criminal judgment establishing the responsibility of a living individual for participation in the October 7 attack by 2 October 2026. Some cases have reached arrest and indictment, others ended with the deaths of the suspects, and Israel’s new regime has remained focused on implementation.
The outstanding legal work is consequently concentrated in adjudication. Courts must have jurisdiction under the applicable legal framework, defendants must be brought before them where their presence is required, evidence must be connected to legally recognized forms of individual responsibility, and allegations must survive adversarial testing. Any resulting judgment must also withstand the appellate scrutiny provided by the relevant system.
The unfinished work of October 7 accountability lies at that point. A substantial factual and legal record already exists; the decisive next stage is its conversion into enforceable judgments reached through proceedings that establish individual guilt according to law and preserve the procedural rights on which durable criminal accountability depends.
References
Amnesty International (2025) Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territory: Targeting Civilians: Murder, Hostage-Taking and Other Violations by Palestinian Armed Groups in Israel and Gaza. Index No. MDE 15/0282/2025, 11 December 2025. Available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/0282/2025/en/ (Accessed: 1 October 2026).
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) adopted 9 December 1948, entered into force 12 January 1951, 78 UNTS 277. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4&clang=_en (Accessed: 1 October 2026).
Human Rights Watch (2024) “I Can’t Erase All the Blood from My Mind”: Palestinian Armed Groups’ October 7 Assault on Israel. 17 July 2024. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/report/2024/07/17/i-cant-erase-all-blood-my-mind/palestinian-armed-groups-october-7-assault-israel (Accessed: 1 October 2026).
Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel (2024a) Detailed findings on attacks carried out on and after 7 October 2023 in Israel. A/HRC/56/CRP.3, 10 June 2024. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session56/a-hrc-56-crp-3.pdf (Accessed: 1 October 2026).
Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel (2024b) Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel. A/79/232, 11 September 2024. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4063389/files/A_79_232-EN.pdf (Accessed: 1 October 2026).
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (2005) ‘Rule 1. The Principle of Distinction between Civilians and Combatants’, Customary International Humanitarian Law Database [online]. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule1 (Accessed: 1 October 2026).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976, 999 UNTS 171. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=4&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=IV-4&src=Treaty (Accessed: 1 October 2026).
International Court of Justice (2023) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Application instituting proceedings and request for the indication of provisional measures, 29 December 2023, General List No. 192. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf (Accessed: 1 October 2026).
International Criminal Court (2024a) ‘Situation in the State of Palestine: ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I issues warrant of arrest for Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri (Deif)’, 21 November 2024. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-issues-warrant-arrest-mohammed-diab-ibrahim (Accessed: 1 October 2026).
International Criminal Court (2024b) ‘Statement of ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan KC on the issuance of arrest warrants in the Situation in the State of Palestine’, 21 November 2024. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-issuance-arrest-warrants-situation-state-palestine (Accessed: 2 October 2026).
International Criminal Court (2025) Situation in the State of Palestine: Decision terminating proceedings against Mr Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al Masri (Deif), Pre-Trial Chamber I, ICC-01/18-417, 26 February 2025. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/0902ebd180ad67a3.pdf (Accessed: 2 October 2026).
International Criminal Court (n.d.) ‘State of Palestine: Information for victims’ [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/victims/state-palestine (Accessed: 2 October 2026).
International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor (2024) ‘Statement of ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan KC: Applications for arrest warrants in the situation in the State of Palestine’, 20 May 2024. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state (Accessed: 2 October 2026).
Knesset (2026a) ‘By a majority of 93 MKs, Prosecution for the October 7 Massacre Events Bill approved in final readings’, 12 May 2026. Available at: https://main.knesset.gov.il/EN/News/PressReleases/Pages/press12526r.aspx (Accessed: 2 October 2026).
Knesset (2026b) ‘Constitution Committee approves for second and third readings the bill for prosecution of October 7 perpetrators, subject to renewed debate’, 25 March 2026. Available at: https://main.knesset.gov.il/en/news/pressreleases/pages/press25326r.aspx (Accessed: 2 October 2026).
Knesset (2026c) ‘ועדת החוקה שבה לדון בסעיף הרגיש של שידור הדיונים מבימ"ש הצבאי לקראת סיום הכנת הצ"ח לקריאות 3-2; הדיון יימשך מחר’, 23 March 2026. Available at: https://main.knesset.gov.il/news/pressreleases/pages/press23032026f.aspx (Accessed: 2 October 2026).
Knesset (2026d) חוק העמדה לדין בשל אירועי טבח 7 באוקטובר 2023 (טבח שמיני עצרת), התשפ"ו–2026 [Law on Prosecution for the Events of the Massacre on October 7, 2023 (Simchat Torah Massacre), 5786–2026]. Sefer Ha-Hukkim, No. 3527, p. 570, 13 May 2026. Available at: https://main.knesset.gov.il/apps/legislation/main/laws/2243337 (Accessed: 2 October 2026).
Library of Congress, Law Library of Congress (2026) ‘Israel: Knesset Adopts Law to Prosecute Perpetrators of October 7, 2023, Offenses’, Global Legal Monitor, 23 July 2026. Available at: https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2026-07-23/israel-knesset-adopts-law-to-prosecute-perpetrators-of-october-7-2023-offenses/ (Accessed: 2 October 2026).
Ministry of Defense, Israel (2026) ‘מיליארד ש"ח יוקצו להעמדת מחבלי ה-7 באוקטובר לדין’, 2 June 2026.
Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict (2024) Mission Report: Official Visit of the Office of the SRSG-SVC to Israel and the Occupied West Bank, 29 January–14 February 2024. 4 March 2024. Available at: https://www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/report/mission-report-official-visit-of-the-office-of-the-srsg-svc-to-israel-and-the-occupied-west-bank-29-january-14-february-2024/20240304-Israel-oWB-CRSV-report.pdf (Accessed: 2 October 2026).
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002, 2187 UNTS 3. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/publications/core-legal-texts/rome-statute-international-criminal-court (Accessed: 2 October 2026).
Statute of the International Court of Justice (1945) signed 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/statute (Accessed: 2 October 2026).
United Nations Secretary-General (2025) Conflict-related sexual violence: Report of the Secretary-General. S/2025/389, 15 July 2025. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4086814?ln=en (Accessed: 2 October 2026).
United Nations Secretary-General (2026) Conflict-related sexual violence: Report of the Secretary-General. S/2026/321, 21 April 2026. Available at: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/conflict-related-sexual-violence-report-of-the-secretary-general-s-2026-321/ (Accessed: 2 October 2026).
United Nations Treaty Collection (n.d.) ‘International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: status and participation’ [online]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=4&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=IV-4&src=Treaty (Accessed: 2 October 2026).
United States Department of Justice (2024) ‘Justice Department Announces Terrorism Charges Against Senior Leaders of Hamas’, 3 September 2024. Available at: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-terrorism-charges-against-senior-leaders-hamas (Accessed: 2 October 2026).
United States Department of Justice (2025a) ‘Gaza Man Arrested for Alleged Involvement in October 7, 2023 Terrorist Attacks’, 17 October 2025. Available at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/gaza-man-arrested-alleged-involvement-october-7-2023-terrorist-attacks (Accessed: 2 October 2026).
United States Department of Justice (2025b) ‘U.S. Attorney Zachary A. Keller Highlights a Dozen Significant Prosecutions During Government Shutdown’, 21 November 2025. Available at: https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdla/pr/us-attorney-zachary-keller-highlights-dozen-significant-prosecutions-during-government (Accessed: 2 October 2026).