The commission noted, "Georgia did not use force against Russian troops on Russian territory, but only on Georgian territory."[153] The commission stated that an attack by Georgian troops on Russian peacekeepers present in Georgia – "if not in self-defence against a Russian attack", would not be justified.[154] The commission wrote that it was "not entirely clear that Georgian military action against the base was aimed specifically at Russia".[155] However, the commission concluded that an attack on Russian peacekeepers was not "a sufficient condition" to be used for self-defence by Russia and "the fact of the Georgian attack on the Russian peacekeepers’ basis could not be definitely confirmed by the mission."[156] The commission said that Russian peacekeepers had the right to immediate, necessary and proportionate response in case of direct attack on them.[157] However, "doubts remain whether the Russian peacekeepers were attacked in the first place,"[157] and the mission "was unable to establish whether, at the time of the alleged attacks on Russian peacekeepers’ bases, the peacekeepers had lost their protection owing to their participation in the hostilities."[158] The commission concluded that "the expulsion of the Georgian forces from South Ossetia, and the defence of South Ossetia as a whole was not a legitimate objective",[159] and "according to international law, the Russian military action taken as a whole was therefore neither necessary nor proportionate to protect Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia."[160] The commission concluded that Russia did not have the right to justify its actions as "a mere reinforcement and fulfilment of its peacekeeping mission."[161]
