DODIG-2018-018Report No. DODIG-2018-018 U.S. Department of Defense InspectorNOVEMBER 16, 2017 General Implementation of the DoD Leahy Law Regarding Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse by Members of the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces INTEGRITY EFFICIENCY ACCOUNTABILITY EXCELLENCE INTEGRITY EFFICIENCY ACCOUNTABILITY EXCELLENCE Mission Our mission is to provide independent, relevant, and timely oversight of the Department of Defense that supports the warfighter; promotes accountability, integrity, and efficiency; advises the Secretary of Defense and Congress; and informs the public. Vision Our vision is to be a model oversight organization in the Federal Government by leading change, speaking truth, and promoting excellence—a diverse organization, working together as one professional team, recognized as leaders in our field. Fraud, Waste, & Abuse HOTLINE Department of Defense dodig.mil/hotline|800.424.9098 For more information about whistleblower protection, please see the inside back cover. Implementation of the DoD Leahy Law Regarding Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse by Members of the AfghanResults National in Defense Brief and Security Forces November 16, 2017 Congressional Concerns (cont’d) Objectives Afghanistan’s status as a sovereign nation, that it was not a priority issue for the command, or that it was best to To evaluate the implementation of the DoD let the local police handle it. Leahy Law regarding child sexual abuse as it applies to DoD interaction with, and Title 3. What training has been conducted or planned for DoD 10 support of, the Afghan Security Ministries personnel on identifying and responding to alleged child and the Afghan National Defense and Security sexual abuse, or the obligation to report suspected violations? Forces (ANDSF). • The DoD did not conduct training for personnel deployed Congressional Concerns or deploying to Afghanistan before 2015 on identifying, responding to, or reporting suspected instances of child sexual abuse. In September 2015, the Staff Judge Members of Congress expressed concerns Advocate (SJA) for U.S. Forces-Afghanistan (USFOR-A) regarding allegations of child sexual abuse prepared training slides titled “Mandatory Reporting in Afghanistan, particularly against young of Suspected Human Rights Abuses,” for use in theater. boys by ANDSF personnel. In response, we This training states that Resolute Support (RS) and conducted this evaluation to address the USFOR-A personnel are required to report any suspected following questions: human-rights abuses, including suspected child sexual abuse. USFOR-A personnel conducted such training for 1. What laws, regulations, directives, DoD personnel deployed to Afghanistan beginning in standards, or other guidance, including late 2015. international laws, treaties, or agreements, exist that impact DoD policy related • The DoD also provides Cultural Awareness Training, to allegations of child sexual abuse Combating Trafficking in Persons Training, and Sexual involving ANDSF personnel; the obligation Assault Prevention Training to personnel deploying to or of DoD-affiliated personnel to report assigned in Afghanistan. However, this training does not suspected child sexual abuse by Afghan specifically instruct U.S. personnel to report allegations government officials; and DoD involvement of child sexual abuse. in responding to such reports or allegations? 4. How many cases of child sexual abuse alleged against Afghan government officials have been reported to U.S. or Coalition • We identify in this report the laws, Forces Commands, the Service Inspectors General, or the DoD regulations, and guidance impacting Office of Inspector General? When were such reports made? DoD policy. What actions were taken and by whom? 2. Is there, or was there, any DoD guidance, • Between 2010 and 2016, we identified 16 allegations informal or otherwise, to discourage of child sexual abuse involving Afghan government reporting by DoD-affiliated personnel? officials that were reported by DoD and Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA) personnel • We did not identify official guidance to the DoD. However, we could not confirm that the that discouraged DoD-affiliated 16 allegations represented the total number reported personnel from reporting incidents to U.S. or Coalition Forces Commands in Afghanistan of child sexual abuse. due to inconsistent DoD reporting procedures and an • In some cases, personnel we overall lack of unified guidance on reporting and record interviewed explained that they, or keeping relating to child sexual abuse. See the response someone whom they knew, were told to question 4 in the classified appendix D for additional informally that nothing could be done information on these 16 allegations. about child sexual abuse because of i DODIG-2018-018 (Project No. D2016-D00SPO-0083.000) │ Implementation of the DoD Leahy Law Regarding Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse by Members of the AfghanResults National in Defense Brief and Security Forces Congressional Concerns (cont’d) 5. How many cases of alleged child sexual abuse have 9. What DoD guidance exists for U.S. military personnel been reported to the Afghan government by DoD regarding intervention and use of force when affiliated personnel? When were such reports made? witnessing child sexual abuse in Afghanistan and What knowledge does the DoD have of action taken what related training is provided? by the Afghan government? • This question is partially answered in response to • We identified that 11 of the 16 allegations questions 6 and 7. Additional information related reported to the DoD between 2010 and 2016 to this question can be found in the classified were reported to officials of the GIRoA by DoD appendix to this report. affiliated personnel. Findings • See the classified appendix for additional information. In addition to providing specific responses to the nine 6 and 7. What legal authority do U.S. Forces in Afghanistan questions, our evaluation also resulted in four findings, have to intervene in cases in Afghanistan where they which are discussed briefly in this Results in Brief observe or suspect child sexual abuse by ANDSF section, the unclassified report, and in more detail in personnel? Are U.S. Forces authorized to use force to the classified appendix. stop instances where they witness child sexual abuse Finding A by ANDSF personnel? Under the DoD Law of War Program, and consistent with We found that prior to specific command guidance issued bilateral and international agreements governing U.S. in September 2015, U.S. personnel in Afghanistan may not operations in Afghanistan, U.S. Forces who observe a have known to report allegations of child sexual abuse to member of the ANDSF sexually abusing a child are not their chains of command. This occurred because there prohibited from intervening and using reasonable force as was no guidance prior to that date that identified child may be necessary to prevent or stop such sexual abuse. sexual abuse as a human rights violation that should be However, U.S. Forces are under no obligation to intervene. reported. Additionally, there is still no specific guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 8. What authority do DoD personnel have on bases in Policy (OUSD(P)) for reporting gross violations of human Afghanistan to control who can enter the bases, either rights (GVHR). As a result, there is no certainty that Afghan Security Force personnel or Afghan civilians? USFOR-A SJA received notification of all allegations of human-rights violations, including child sexual abuse • DoD personnel have the authority to control involving ANDSF personnel. access to “Agreed Facilities and Areas,” which Finding B are identified in the “Status of NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] Forces and NATO Personnel Conducting Mutually Agreed NATO-Led We found that OUSD(P) does not have standardized Activities in Afghanistan” and the “Security and guidance or a process for determining whether Defense Cooperation Agreement between the information supporting GVHR allegations is credible. United States of America and the Islamic Republic This occurred because: of Afghanistan.” These agreements authorize • The phrase “credible information” is not defined NATO or U.S. Forces to control entry into agreed as it applies to the DoD Leahy Law; facilities and areas provided for their respective exclusive use and to coordinate entry with Afghan • There is no DoD or OUSD(P) guidance for authorities at joint-use agreed facilities and areas, determining whether credible information for the purposes of safety and security. exists; and ii │ DODIG-2018-018 (Project No. D2016-D00SPO-0083.000) Implementation of the DoD Leahy Law Regarding Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse by Members of the AfghanResults National in Defense Brief and Security Forces Findings (cont’d) • The OUSD(P) does not require or maintain any • Define “credible information” as it applies to gross documentation pertaining to whether or how violation of human rights determinations and the information was determined to be credible. DoD Leahy Law (Recommendation B.1); As a result, this creates the risk of inconsistent credibility • Establish the specific process by which DoD Leahy determinations that, in the absence of clearly articulated Law credible information determinations are made, guidance, could adversely affect the OUSD(P)’s ability to including requiring time frames for reaching all comply with the DoD Leahy Law. such decisions (Recommendations