Key issue
- A 2020 report of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force found credible information of war crimes committed by the ADF in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016.
- The Office of the Special Investigator (OSI) is investigating these accusations. To date, no individuals have been referred for prosecution.
- The Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan has created practical difficulties for investigators.
- Australia has obligations under international law to investigate and prosecute war crimes.
As a result of rumours that surfaced regarding alleged war crimes
by Australian Special Forces in Afghanistan, in 2016 the Chief of Army referred
the situation to the Inspector-General of the ADF (IGADF) who then directed the
Assistant IGADF to inquire into the matter (Brereton Report, p.
10).
The Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Afghanistan
Inquiry report, released in 2020 (the Brereton Report) found credible information
that members of the Australian Special Forces had committed
war crimes during their operations in
Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016. These accusations led to the establishment of
the Office of the Special Investigator (OSI).
The Brereton Report and the ongoing work of the OSI is significant due
to the role of Australia's armed forces overseas, Australia's international reputation and the
need to ensure that the ADF is adhering to International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
It is likely that over the course of the 47th Parliament, some of
the work of the OSI as well as structural and cultural responses by Defence are
likely to come to completion. Parliament will have an ongoing role in
monitoring this work, particularly as over time the momentum for change may
diminish in the context of other pressing issues.
Australia has obligations under IHL to prosecute grave breaches of
the Geneva Conventions. In addition, Australia is a state
party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) which carries international obligations to
investigate and prosecute war crimes.
Currently, the investigations by the OSI are continuing, with a
recent injection of funds in the 2022- 23 federal Budget (see the Parliamentary
Library's 2022 Budget review article on the OSI), although to date no referrals have
been made from the OSI to the Commonwealth Director of
Public Prosecutions (CDPP) for prosecution. It is likely,
however, that these referrals will be made over time.
When the OSI was established by the Morrison Government, the then Opposition
Leader Anthony Albanese said that Australia ‘must act on
the Brereton Report findings and never hide from the truth of our past’.
Following the release of the Report in November 2020, the then Shadow Defence
Minister, Richard Marles, called
on the Morrison Government to implement all the recommendations
of the Brereton Report and said that Labor supported the establishment of the
OSI.
The Brereton Report
On 6 November
2020 the Chief of the Defence Force, General
Angus Campbell, received the Brereton Report from the Inspector-General
of the ADF, James Gaynor. The Inspector-General is an independent statutory office holder, with powers similar
to a royal commission (Brereton Report, p. 27). The Afghanistan Inquiry
was subsequently conducted by Major General Paul Brereton, a judge of the NSW
Supreme Court and Army Reserve Officer, acting in the capacity of an Assistant
IGADF. The findings of the Brereton Report were announced on 19 November 2020 and a redacted public version was released.
Australia’s military involvement in Afghanistan began in September 2001
and continued until mid-June 2021, making it the longest engagement by Australia in an armed
conflict (p. 26). The Brereton Report labels the actions of a number of
Australian Special Forces members ‘disgraceful and a profound betrayal of the
Australian Defence Force’s professional standards and expectations’ (p. 41).
While the Afghanistan Inquiry did not make final conclusions on
whether a criminal or disciplinary offence had been committed by a specific
person, it was able to make findings that credible information existed which,
if substantiated, could lead to criminal convictions (pp. 146–157). This reflects
that it functioned as a fact finding inquiry into the broader issue (see Part
4, Division 4A of the Inspector-General
of the Australian Defence Force Regulation 2016) rather than
as a criminal court, which has the task of making a finding of fact in relation to
specific criminal charges brought against a named individual. Importantly, in
performing its tasks it operates under different rules of evidence, providing
different levels of protection to witnesses and the accused. As the report
states: ‘the purpose was to inform options for further action … it is the
beginning of a process’ (p. 27).
The Brereton Report states that credible information existed of 23
incidents in which one or more non-combatants were unlawfully killed by or at
the direction of Australian Special Forces, which may constitute the war crime
of murder. There was also credible information of a further 2 incidents where a
non-combatant was mistreated in a way that may constitute the war crime of
cruel treatment (pp. 28–29). The report found credible information that during these
alleged incidents, a total of 39 individuals were killed and a further
2 individuals were treated cruelly. In total, 25 current or former ADF personnel
were identified as alleged perpetrators- either as principals or accessories (p.
29).
The Brereton Report states that these acts were not ‘incidents of
disputable decisions made under pressure in the heat of battle’ (p. 29). Rather,
they were situations ‘in which it was or should have been plain that the person
killed was a non-combatant, or hors-de-combat’ (p. 29). If an individual is hors-de-combat this means that
they are in the power of an adverse party, they have clearly expressed an
intention to surrender or they are defenceless because, for example, they are
unconscious or incapacitated. Attacking an individual who is hors-de-combat is prohibited under IHL and they must be treated humanely.
The Brereton Report also found that there is credible information that some members of the ADF placed weapons with the body of an
‘enemy killed in action’. This was done ‘in order to portray that the person killed
had been carrying the weapon or other military equipment when engaged and was a
legitimate target’ (p. 29).
The Brereton Report recommended that the Chief of
the Defence Force refer 36 matters comprising 23 incidents and 19 individuals to the
Australian Federal Police (AFP) for criminal investigation (p. 40). These
19 individuals could face prosecution for war crimes in Australia under the Criminal
Code Act 1995 (Cth) Division 268. These
crimes could also potentially be prosecuted at the ICC as Australia is a state
party to the Rome Statute.
The Brereton Report also recommended that ‘consideration be given to
administrative action for some serving [ADF] members, where there is credible
information of misconduct which either does not meet the threshold for referral
for criminal investigation, or is insufficiently grave for referral, but should
have some consequence’ (p. 41). The Brereton Report also made recommendations
to address the broader reasons behind the findings of potential war crimes such
as ‘strategic, operational, structural, training and cultural
factors’ that contributed to the alleged crimes indirectly (p. 41).
Government response
In response to the Brereton Report, the Department of Defence said it would deal with
disciplinary matters relating to soldiers accused of war crimes and other
misconduct in Afghanistan. This was outlined in the 2021
Afghanistan Inquiry reform plan.
According to media reports, as a result of the Brereton Report, 17
lower ranked soldiers have been issued termination notices for ‘alleged
failure to meet ADF expectations and values. The reports suggest that several of these soldiers were
dismissed, some continued serving and others were medically discharged. Documents obtained through Freedom of Information requests revealed
that General Campbell suspended potential administrative
actions against 7 serving and former officers until the OSI investigations
concluded.
The Australian Government also established the
separate and independent Afghanistan
Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel. The Oversight
Panel is intended to provide independent oversight and assurance of the
Department of Defence’s broader response to the Afghanistan Inquiry. In
undertaking its work, the Oversight Panel reports quarterly
to the Minister for Defence (p. 15).
Victims of war crimes committed in Afghanistan
The Brereton Report recommended that where ‘there is credible
information that an identified or identifiable Afghan national has been
unlawfully killed’, Australia should compensate the family of the individual without waiting for the establishment of criminal liability:
‘This will be an important step in rehabilitating Australia’s
international reputation, in particular with Afghanistan, and it is simply the
right thing to do’ (p. 41).
In the 2021 Afghanistan
Inquiry reform plan the Government committed
to developing a whole-of-government response to the recommendations to
compensate families of victims of war crimes by the end of 2021. In April 2022, the Department of Defence confirmed that this
response had yet to be finalised and that the department ‘was still consulting
with a range of government agencies regarding the compensation recommendations’.
Office of the
Special Investigator
On 12 November 2020 the Morrison Government announced it would
establish the Office of the Special Investigator (OSI), with the
task of reviewing the findings of the Brereton Report. In doing
so the OSI is working with the AFP to investigate allegations of war crimes
committed by the ADF in Afghanistan from 2005 to 2016. The investigations are
being conducted as part of a joint OSI- AFP investigation model and each team
has at least one AFP investigator (OSI
2020-21 Annual report, p. 10).
The OSI is also developing briefs of evidence with
respect to offences that are established under Australian law, for referral to
the CDPP.
On December 2020 an Executive
Council Order was approved by the
Governor-General to establish the OSI as an Executive Agency under section 65
of the Public Service Act 1999. The OSI was formally
established on 4 January 2021 and sits within the Home Affairs portfolio.
On announcing the establishment of the OSI, Prime Minister Morrison said: ‘We need to ensure
justice is truly served by illuminating the conduct of those who may have acted
in ways that do not accord with the high standards expected of our ADF’.
At Senate Estimates in May 2021, Director-General of the OSI, Chris Moraitis stated that the OSI, in
cooperation with the AFP, was investigating not just the potential criminal
matters raised in the Brereton Report but also any new allegations of criminal
offences by the ADF from 2005 to 2016 in Afghanistan (p. 114). At Senate Estimates in October 2021, he said that the OSI has not exonerated
any of the 19 individuals implicated and the investigations process could take
up to 5 years to conclude (p. 55).
At the same Senate Estimates hearing on 25 October
2021, Mr Moraitis said that the joint OSI- AFP investigations were
underway with more than 50 investigators and intelligence analysts, including
10 teams of investigators (p. 54).
The fall of Kabul to the Taliban in August 2021 has
created practical difficulties for the collection of evidence in
Afghanistan. According to Mr Moraitis, ‘To date, our work has not been
markedly impeded by the situation in Afghanistan’ (p. 54). He indicated that
investigations could continue as investigating teams were focused on gaining
information from a variety of other sources aside from on the ground in
Afghanistan. However, ‘the situation is not ideal from an
investigation perspective … access to individuals in Afghanistan or even
evidence or places is extremely difficult, if not currently impossible’ (p.
55).
Similarly at Senate Additional Estimates hearings on 14 February 2022,
Mr Moraitis indicated that: ‘it’s not ideal in the sense that you can't visit
the country and pursue avenues there. It just means that we need to focus on
what we can do, rather than what we can't do’ (p. 129). He reiterated that the
OSI was focused on gathering evidence outside Afghanistan as well as from
inside Afghanistan, without physically being present (p. 129).
A key risk is that ultimately the OSI
investigations may not result in charges being brought due to the difficulties
in obtaining evidence and the extended period of time since the alleged
offences occurred.
Wider context: the International Criminal Court
Australia’s response to the allegations made in relation to the ADF
in Afghanistan should also be viewed in the wider context of the international
legal framework.
The world’s first permanent international criminal court, the ICC,
was established pursuant to the Rome Statute in 1998 and Australia is a state
party.
As noted, under the Rome Statute, states parties have a duty to
investigate and appropriately prosecute suspected perpetrators of international
crimes. The ICC has an obligation to prosecute international crimes within its
jurisdiction only if a state with jurisdiction is ‘unwilling or unable’ to
prosecute (Article 17(1)(a)). This is known as the principle of complementarity.
The ICC is currently undertaking an
investigation into international crimes committed in
Afghanistan since 1 May 2003, including alleged crimes related to the conflict
in Afghanistan that were committed on the territory of other states parties to
the Rome Statute since 1 July 2002. This investigation was authorised by the
Appeals Chamber of the ICC on 5 March 2020.
In 2020, Afghanistan requested that the investigation into Afghanistan be deferred so that
the state could conduct national proceedings. The ability of Afghanistan to do
so has, however, been questioned by human rights organisations. In
September 2021 the
ICC prosecutor requested that the investigation be resumed.
The inquiry into allegations of Australian war
crimes in Afghanistan may increase the possibility of further inquiries and
investigations into the actions of the ADF operating in other countries, such
as Iraq. In both New
Zealand and the UK, the actions
of military forces operating in these overseas military operations has been
questioned due to allegations of war crimes.
Further reading
Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force (IGADF), Afghanistan Inquiry Report, (Canberra: IGADF, 2020).
Nicole Brangwin, Background to the Afghanistan Withdrawal: a Quick Guide, Research paper series, 2021–22, (Canberra: Parliamentary Library, 2021).
Karen Elphick, Reports, Allegations and Inquiries into Serious Misconduct by Australian Troops in Afghanistan 2005–2013, Research paper series, 2020–2021, (Canberra: Parliamentary Library, 2020).
Karen Elphick, The Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Afghanistan Inquiry (Brereton Inquiry): a Quick Guide, Research paper series, 2020–2021, (Canberra: Parliamentary Library, 2020).