Questions and Responses provided to Dylan Welch,
The Sydney Morning Herald/The Age
4 September 2012
Question 1. Were the two people killed called Raz Mohammed Akhund (hereafter "RMA") and Jalil Akhund ("JA") and were their approximate ages, respectively, 50 and 30? Was JA the son of RMA?
Question 2. Was RMA an imam or other Islamic religious authority? Did the raid involve the village's mosque?
Response to questions 1 and 2:
Defence does not release the personal details of insurgents killed during operations.
In the course of the operation no Australian forces entered a designated mosque.
Australian personnel undergo extensive cultural and religious training to ensure that they can conduct operations with the required sensitivity.
Question 3. Were RMA or JA armed when they were shot? If so, with what weapons? If not, why were they shot?
Question 4. Were RMA or JA shot by Australian or Afghan personnel?
Question 5. Were RMA or JA shot in or near the village mosque? If not, where were they shot?
Question 6. Did the personnel carrying out the mission receive any direct or indirect fire? If so, please describe.
Question 9. How long did the entire operation (from arrival at the village to the situation being considered under control) take?
Response to questions 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9:
As the Minister for Defence Stephen Smith said on 3 September 2012: "... in the normal course of events when there is any suggestion of either ill-treatment or involvement of civilians, Defence conducts a standard process. Firstly there is a quick assessment, and secondly if there is a need, there is a formal investigation.”
Defence is currently reviewing the operation and it is inappropriate to provide further details while this review is ongoing.
Question 7. Was the operation conducted by SOTG personnel? How many personnel were involved? Was it a joint operation with ANSF? If so, which elements and ANSF were present and what was their number? If no Afghan personnel were used, why not?
Response:
Afghan National Security Forces and the Special Operations Task Group were involved in a security operation to apprehend the Afghan soldier who is believed to have killed three Australian soldiers on 29 August 2012 in an insider attack at Patrol base Wahab.
Sixty ADF and 81 ANSF were involved in the operation on 31 August 2012 where a number of individuals were detained in a number of locations during the course of the operation.
Question 8. Given cultural and religious sensitivities, why was an Afghan woman bound and hooded by the Australians? Was she the wife of the INS leader that was detained? Is this the first time Australian troops have been involved in an operation were a female Afghan has been bound and hooded?
Response:
Australian personnel undergo extensive cultural and religious training to ensure that they can conduct operations with the required sensitivity.
The ADF is committed to ensuring that detainees are treated humanely, with dignity and respect, and in accordance with Australia’s domestic and international legal obligations.
Any allegation of detainee mistreatment in relation to the handling of detainees by ADF personnel is assessed or investigated.
ADF detainee handling procedures are in accordance with Australia’s obligations under domestic and international law.
Defence does not release the personal details of persons detained during operations, to do so would be a breach of their privacy and inappropriate.
Question 10. Minister Smith has stated that the ISAF Rules of Engagement were followed during the conduct of the raid? Can you please direct me to a publicly available copy of the ROE is such exists? Can you further provide a more detailed explanation of how the ROE were adhered to despite a village imam being shot dead and a woman hooded?
Response:
For Operational Security reasons, Rules of Engagement are not publicly released.
Members of the ADF operate under strict rules of engagement designed to protect our troops on operations, while ensuring that the actions of Australian forces are consistent with our obligations under Australian and International law in protecting the lives and property of the innocent.
Australia’s rules of engagement are designed to avoid civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure but also to provide suitable protection for our troops.
Australia takes seriously the issue of civilian casualties.
Question 11. Is there anything else you would like to say?
Response:
No.
Additional Questions and Responses provided to Dylan Welch,
The Sydney Morning Herald/The Age
4 September 2012
Question 12. AFG President Hamid Karzai's director of communications, Aimal Faizal, told me last night that URZ's governor and police chief had told the Palace that that they had not approved the raid nor had they been asked to help coordinate it. As Aimal Faizal tweeted (@AimalFaizal) yesterday: "The governor & police chief in Oruzgan, Army chief, head of NDS all say that the SAS raid had not been authorised/coordinated." What evidence can Australia provide that it was coordinated?
Response:
As the Minister for Defence Stephen Smith said at his press conference on 3 September 2012:
"Let me now deal with a statement released by the Palace in Kabul over the weekend with respect to a particular partnered Australian Afghan National Security Force operation. The operation in question was a fully partnered operation with Afghan forces and it had as part of its objective to seek to locate Hekmatullah or to locate insurgents who were suspected of assisting his escape. That fully partnered operation, which was conducted over the weekend, involved some 60 Australian Defence Force personnel and over 80 Afghan National Security Force personnel. Contrary to suggestions from Afghanistan, that partnered operation was authorised in accordance with the usual and normal procedures. It was authorised in accordance with the usual procedures conducted with the Uruzgan Chief of Police and the Governor of Uruzgan Province. So, the usual processes were followed and that partnered or joint operation was fully authorised in accordance with the usual arrangements.
Our Ambassador in Afghanistan has made representations to the Palace and put Australia’s point of view. And our knowledge and understanding and view of the facts is shared by the International Security Assistance Force, whose leadership has also made representations to the Palace. We’re disappointed that there is a misunderstanding, but I don’t put it any higher than that. From time to time there are misunderstandings about operations, but we have made our view to the Palace crystal clear. But regrettably from time to time there are misunderstandings. We’re disappointed by that, but we are absolutely of the view that the facts as I have outlined them is a correct account of the facts, a correct analysis, and that account is shared by the International Security Assistance Force leadership."
The full transcript of the press conference is available at:
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012/09/03/minister-for-defence-stephen-smith-press-conference/
Question 13. Mr Faizal has also alleged there was a large protest outside the office of URZ Governor, Amir Mohammad Akhundzada. Are you aware of that or any other protests held by URZ locals about the raid? Mr Faizal says the effect of the killing and the resultant protests has been a negative impact on the Australian mission in URZ. How do you respond?
Response:
Defence is aware of reports that between 20 and 40 Afghan nationals (some being curious bystanders) approached the Provincial Governor's compound and made representations to the Governor.
Questions and Responses provided to Rory Callinan,
The Sydney Morning Herald
5 September 2012
Question 1. Was a dog used during the raid on the village known as Sula or Sola?
Question 2. How was Mullah Raz Muhammed and his son Jalil killed. Local residents allege both men were unarmed and in the custody of Australian soldiers in the village when they died?
Question 3. Was an attempt made to hide Raz Muhammed's body under leaves under a fig tree in the village and if so what was the purpose of this?
Question 4. was a dog allowed to savage Raz Muhammed's body as locals report it looked as though something had been allowed to tear the skin off his chest?
Question 5. Why were Raz Mohammed and Jalil targetted?
Question 6. Locals have alleged women had the hair torn out of heir heads by searching soldiers. Were Australian soldiers in any way involved in this and if so why and if not were the accompany Afghan soldiers or other Afghan forces with them involved in this and why?
Question 7. Why were a number of houses targetted during the raid not just Mullah Raz Mohammed's and why were the raids done at night and involving storming compounds - given an earlier policy of surrounding compounds not entering them?
Responses to questions 1 to 7:
Defence does not release the personal details of insurgents killed during operations.
Members of the ADF operate under strict rules of engagement designed to protect our troops on operations, while ensuring that the actions of Australian forces are consistent with our obligations under Australian and International law in protecting the lives and property of the innocent.
Australia’s rules of engagement are designed to avoid civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure but also to provide suitable protection for our troops.
Australia takes seriously the issue of civilian casualties.
Australian personnel undergo extensive cultural and religious training to ensure that they can conduct operations with the required sensitivity.
Any allegation of mistreatment in relation to the handling of detainees or the deceased by ADF personnel is assessed or investigated.
Question 8: What investigation is the ADF doing into this matter?
Response:
As Minister for Defence Stephen Smith stated on 3 September 2012: "In the normal course of events when there is any suggestion of either ill-treatment or involvement of civilians, Defence conducts a standard process. Firstly there is a quick assessment, and secondly if there is a need, there is a formal investigation."
Defence is currently reviewing the operation and it is inappropriate to provide further details while this review is ongoing.
