syria-un-20160826 12

S/2016/738 12/98 16-14788 shown had been removed from those locations before their documentation (see paras. 49-51 below). 4. Local early warning systems 48. The Leadership Panel took note that, in most cases, members of the local community had set up an early warning system to issue alerts of approaching helicopters, in some cases specifically referring to purported attacks with toxic chemicals. This was done partly through the interception of radio communications. The local population had been advised to seek shelter in basements in case of air strikes and to escape to upwind positions when chemical alerts were issued. Chemical alerts in some cases were reported to have caused panic among the population. In at least three cases, witnesses referred to false chemical alerts being issued, and in two cases they claimed that houses had been looted after the evacuation. In some of the cases, the description of the local early warning personnel in relation to an attack allegedly conducted by a helicopter was the only record of the delivery method by helicopter. 5. Documentation by others 49. The Leadership Panel found that much of the information on craters and munitions originated either from first responders and medical personnel or internationally supported monitoring groups. New witnesses with relevant and case-specific information that was not based on these sources were difficult to find. 50. In most cases, the documentation of the impact locations, including sampling, was not undertaken immediately after the event but a few days later. Furthermore, remnants of the munition used had been dismantled and removed from the impact location before their documentation. The Mechanism therefore had to re-evaluate the link between the impact location and the remnants, which was not possible in some cases. The Mechanism found that some impact locations had been altered and not all craters tallied with the remnants of the munition. In some cases, it appeared that remnants taken from elsewhere had been placed at the alleged impact locations. 51. Different footage of explosions, impact locations and remnants was uploaded to social media sites, published or provided to the Mechanism with the claim that it was related to the incidents under investigation. However, after thorough analysis of the material, including by forensic institutes, some of the footage showed different locations or explosions from conventional munitions and/or different times. This resulted in the Mechanism investigating additional impact locations and remnants. B. Specific findings 52. Each of the nine cases investigated required the consideration of multiple narratives. Furthermore, there were allegations of multiple impact locations for the chlorine-related cases, all of which required investigation. However, the Mechanism found that in many of these cases sufficient information was available only for one impact location, while for other alleged impact locations it was extremely scarce, i.e., no relevant information on the remnants, crater, impact and effects was available