Which, yeah, probably. But take a look at this bit:
Human Rights Watch (HRW) has accused both Moscow and Damascus of “extensive use” of banned cluster munitions in Syria.
HRW said it had documented the use of such weapons on at least 20 occasions since Syria and Russia began their joint offensive on September 30.
The New York-based rights group collected detailed information about attacks in nine locations that have killed at least 35 civilians, including five women and 17 children, and injured dozens. Two attacks hit camps for the displaced.
In a statement issued on December 20, HRW said all the recent cluster-munition attacks it had documented fell on opposition-controlled territory.
Notice the word banned. Presumably HRW is referring the the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Which does indeed ban the use of cluster munitions.
One small problem for HRW though. Neither Russia nor Syria are signatories of the CCM. For that matter, neither is the US.
Cluster munitions are unpopular with the usual suspects because they have a significant dud rate. That is, indeed, a valid issue, though that rate can be ameliorated by care in where and how they are employed.
The fact remains that cluster munitions are militarily useful and efficient. For that matter, they can very often reduce collateral damage, while minimizing exposure of friendly forces.
For instance, right after the Paris terror attack, the US began attacking ISIS oil tanker trucks in Syria, and made a big deal of releasing video of A-10s making gun runs on the trucks, and boasting of the hundreds of trucks destroyed.
Which, the A-10 and its GAU-8 gun are spectacular. But a single pass by an F-15E Strike Eagle dropping a dozen or so CBU-103 WCMD would likely have yielded the same or better results.
So while we don’t doubt someone could find violations of the Law of War committee by Russia or Syria, this ain’t it, in spite of HRW and RFE/RFL’s best attempt to paint is so.