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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
edit: And a link, please. Not some image.
No she was not.
You literally linked the article with the statement yourself. Read it. You don’t want a highlighted image right?
sadly, you’re wrong in this instance.
(emphasis in original news brief).
According to the actual report:
(emphasis added)
So, she wasn’t a no-name 3rd party, but wasn’t an investigative envoy.