Sorry, that was not what I meant. That's my bad. I mean the report fails to establish Russian war crimes.

Although, I should say a new UN report has come out recently which I did not read yet.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:d033ebd3-aef1-443e-9810-36667d08a9a5

This is the original UN report. It investigated civilian deaths in 4 areas.

While they document these deaths and they try to accuse Russian forces of being responsible for them, they admit there's not enough evidence except for a few cases. For example, read paragraphs 30-32 on Bucha, where they say their evidence relies only on the testimonies of Ukrainian intelligence services, Ukrainian armed forces and AP journalists embedded with the Azov battalion (which they don't say but was the first to enter the town after the Russian withdrawal)

This is the Russian reaction to the report:

https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1831500/

Further investigation on the Mariupol hospital incident also indicates that eyewitness testimonies were cooked up: https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/03/testimony-mariupol-hospital-ukrainian-deceptions-media-malpractice/

Several forensics academics came out against the methods of the UN report and they were blasted by media: https://thegrayzone.com/2022/08/21/bbc-antiwar-academics-uk-intel/