Al-Jinah Mosque Strike: US Bombs Hit a Religious Gathering in Syria, Killing 38; UN Finds the US Failed to Take Feasible Precautions (March 2017)

What Happened

Al-Jinah is a village in the western Aleppo countryside, near Idlib Governorate, then controlled by Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, Ahrar al-Sham and local Free Syrian Army groups. Its Omar ibn al-Khattab mosque complex, about 1.5 kilometres from the village centre, included a prayer hall and an adjacent service building with meeting rooms, a kitchen, a dining area and bathrooms. Every Thursday, worshippers gathered there for sunset prayer, a religious lesson, night prayer and a meal (UN Commission of Inquiry, paras 53, 58–59).

On Thursday 16 March 2017, at about 6:55 p.m., just as the lesson was ending and about 15 minutes before night prayer, air strikes hit the centre of the service building and it collapsed. As people tried to escape through the western door, a drone fired two missiles at them in the street. The UN Commission of Inquiry found that 38 people were killed, including one woman and five boys, three aged between 6 and 13 and two aged 17. Twenty-six were injured, many with crushed limbs, head injuries and suffocation from the collapse. Rescuers pulled bodies from the rubble until the next morning (paras 52, 59).

The US account

The same day, CENTCOM announced that "US forces conducted an air strike on al-Qaeda (…) killing several terrorists" at a meeting location. A spokesperson told Airwars the site was "assessed to be a meeting place for al Qaeda, and we took the strike. It happened to be across the street from where there is a mosque." Bellingcat matched munition remnants to US weapons and showed from imagery that the destroyed building was part of the newer mosque itself.

CENTCOM's investigation summary, released on 7 June 2017, said F-15 aircraft dropped 10 bombs on a building "adjacent to a prayer hall" where an al-Qaeda meeting with "regional leaders" was taking place, and that an MQ-9 drone fired two missiles at people who emerged. It found one civilian killed, "possibly a child", and called the strike proportional. It acknowledged that the team had information on the target three days earlier but did not begin target planning until the day of the strike; that it "had failed to identify the religious nature of the buildings, admitting that that had been a preventable error"; and that irregularities in shift changeovers "contributed to a lack of situational awareness" (UN Commission, paras 54–55). None of the "dozens of persons" interviewed was in al-Jinah at the time (para 54).

Independent findings

Human Rights Watch, working with Forensic Architecture's reconstruction, found the building functioned as a mosque, not a "partially constructed community hall" as the US had described it, and found no evidence of an al-Qaeda meeting. It said US forces failed to verify the building's purpose despite publicly available information about prayer times and the weekly lessons (HRW).

The UN Commission of Inquiry found that "information gathered by the Commission does not support the claim that any such meeting was being held at that time". Witnesses described the gathering as strictly religious. Some said Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham had a presence in the village, and the Commission did not rule out that some members may have attended (paras 60–61).

Legal Analysis

Armed conflict. The US was taking part in a non-international armed conflict in Syria. The customary rules of distinction and precautions apply, as does the special protection of buildings dedicated to religion.

Civilian and protected status (met). The service building was part of a mosque complex used for religious purposes. A mosque is a protected object unless used for military purposes, which would be the case only if the alleged al-Qaeda meeting was real. The UN Commission found the evidence did not support that it was. The people killed were worshippers, mostly local residents and displaced people.

Precautions (violation found). The UN Commission concluded that "United States forces failed to take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects, in violation of international humanitarian law". It pointed to the targeting team's lack of understanding that the building was part of a mosque, and to its failure to do additional verification during the three days it had the target (para 61). CENTCOM's own admission of a "preventable error" points the same way.

War crime (not shown). Attacking a building dedicated to religion (Art. 8(2)(e)(iv)) or civilians (Art. 8(2)(e)(i)) requires intent: that the attackers meant to strike a mosque or civilians, or knew that they were doing so. The US account is a mistake of fact: it believed the building was an al-Qaeda meeting place. The UN Commission found a failure of precautions, which is a serious violation of IHL but not by itself a war crime. HRW said the failures raise "questions of criminal recklessness", but recklessness is not enough under the Rome Statute's Article 30.

Strongest defence argument. The US used low-collateral munitions, and the UN Commission confirmed the weapons were chosen to limit damage beyond the target building. The US says it was targeting a real al-Qaeda meeting and mistook the building's use. If that belief was honestly held, it defeats intent. The defence is weakened by the absence of any evidence for the meeting, by the target having been known for three days without verification, and by the follow-on strike on people fleeing.

Jurisdiction. Neither Syria nor the US is a Rome Statute party.

Why This Grade

This entry is graded severe with a war-crime classification of potential.

• A UN Commission of Inquiry, applying the law to facts it investigated, found that US forces violated international humanitarian law, and the US itself admits a "preventable error". The harm, 38 dead at a religious gathering, is concrete and documented.
• What is missing for the top grade is intent or knowledge: a finding that the US meant to attack worshippers or a mosque, or knew it was doing so. Neither the UN nor HRW made that finding, so the war-crime element is at a reasonable basis to suspect, not reasonable grounds to believe.

Confidence in this grade: medium-high.