syria-un-20160826 34

S/2016/738 34/98 16-14788 witnesses, did not die of chlorine exposure; some of the patients might have suffered from other injuries and/or anxiety. 71. The Government of the Syrian Arab Republic and one other source accused armed opposition groups and individuals of fabricating false report on patients. They were “filming and taking photographs of the affected population, including children, with a view to presenting the episode as chemical attack by government forces.” A local physician was allegedly directly involved in preparing fake footage paid by other Member States to fabricate these claims. There is no evidence to support the statement given above. Location #4 72. According to the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, there were injuries and deaths among IDPs, in addition to six Nusrah Front-affiliated fighters. The investigators analysed the effect of the destruction at location #4 considering that toxic chemicals were stored in the building and released with the explosion. Probably the greatest impact would be less than 100 m from the house. 73. It is plausible that people inside the house died and that the neighbouring houses were affected causing exposure to civilians. The investigators estimated that approximately 30 houses would be in this perimeter. A dispersion analysis was not possible due to the lack of information on the kind and amount of toxic substances stored in the house. Location #5 74. The witness saw yellow and white smoke and smelled a bad odour, as never experienced before. The witness and family members experienced difficulty breathing. In a first interview, the witness mentioned to have seen a three-year-old girl exhibiting laboured breathing, secretions and cyanosis in the hospital. In a second interview, the witness referred only to opposition fighters being treated for other injuries. The Mechanism could not gather additional information to corroborate the witness’ testimony. The Leadership Panel’s assessment 75. The Leadership Panel examined the existing information and evidence regarding the incident in Kafr Zita on 11 April 2014 and determined that the SAAF executed air strikes in that area on that day. At least one explosion resulted from the airstrike. 76. The Leadership Panel could not confirm the use of barrel bombs because the remnants of the device allegedly used had been removed from the site and could not be linked to any of the impact locations. 77. While a significant number of people — up to 150 — may have been exposed to chlorine on 11 April 2014, the Leadership Panel determined that there was insufficient information at this stage to draw a conclusion on the actors involved