Isreali captain acquitted of charges

In 2004, an Israeli officer emptied his rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl. He was later charged on several accounts, including the "illegal use of his weapon, conduct unbecoming an officer and perverting the course of justice by asking soldiers under his command to alter their accounts of the incident" (see link below). In late 2005, the officer, codenamed Capt. R, was acquitted of all charges. He has since, in addition to being reinstated to the military and receiving a promotion (to compensate for the loss of pay during the hearings and other factors such as defamation of his name), won a libel lawsuit against an Israeli investigative journalist.

Here's the article where I first heard about the acquittal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/16/israel2?CMP=twt_gu

Yes, I realize that this happened several years ago, but I just found out about it, and since I spent the last couple of hours looking into the case and trying to find all the different sides of the story, it seems to be a dilemma worth discussing.

The main points of contention, it seems lie not in the killing of a 13-year-old girl. (Which sounds like it would be the main point in contention to me, but apparently it has been fairly common for Palestinian militant organizations to recruit children. A good source of links of examples of this can be found here. Feel free to ignore the Wikipedia article, but there are several links to reputable news sources at the bottom of the page.) According to an article in Haaretz (one of the major Israeli media sources), it is against IDF policies to "confirm a kill," which Capt. R is quoted to have said. Further viewpoints and details of the situation can be found at www.israelmilitary.net/, news.bbc.co.uk, and www.guardian.co.uk. In particular, I found the thread (note that there are two pages of it) at israelmilitary.net interesting to read. 

Based on the situation as described by witnesses, it seems very unethical, even if one believes that a scared-looking child who is running away from a militarized zone is a potential threat (which is possible, since according to the above articles, it has happened before, although several of the soldiers stated that they didn't agree with the Captain that the girl was in a threatening position). Additionally, the backpack she had been carrying, which was the original cause for firing on her as the soldiers thought it could contain a bomb, had been dropped and fired on, proving that it contained no explosives, before the soldier went to where the girl was hiding, shot her in the head twice, then emptied the rest of his shots into the girl's body. Doctors at the hospital where the girl was taken reported that there were at least 17 bullet wounds in the girl's body.

Although one may argue that the initial warning shots at the girl were necessary, once the girl fled, it seems unlikely to me that one can justify exiting the base, walking more than 100 yards, and putting two bullets into this girl's head, while she lies cowering behind an embankment. It is even harder for me to justify to myself that it is necessary to not only put the gun to the side of the girl's head and pull the trigger again, but also to empty the rest of the clip throughout the girl's body. Regardless of the ethics of the rest of what Capt. R did, that action alone seems unethical enough to indict him.