Click here to read our statement on the UN press conference announcing the release of the Special Measures Report.
The following data are current as of March 19, 2021.
Review of the Secretary-general’s Special Measures Report released March 19, 2021 (A/75/754)
The total number of sexual exploitation and abuse allegations has remained steady. In 2020, the UN received 66 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse in peacekeeping,[1] compared to 80 such allegations in 2019, 56 in 2018, and 63 in 2017. For sexual exploitation and abuse committed by UN personnel outside of peacekeeping, the UN received 91 allegations in 2020,[2] compared to 107 in 2019, 95 in 2018, and 44 in 2017.[3] In 2020, the UN also received 227 allegations involving individuals working for organizations paid by the UN to carry out its programmes (implementing partners).[4]
In total, the UN received 384 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse.[5]
Civilians continue to account for a disproportionate number of alleged perpetrators. For allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse involving UN personnel (excluding implementing partners) that the UN received in 2020, 69.4% (109 of 157) involved civilian perpetrators. This includes allegations involving civilians serving in peacekeeping, as well as all allegations involving non-peacekeeping personnel.
In addition to these 109 allegations involving civilian UN personnel, 227 allegations involved implementing partners. When this figure is included, the percentage of allegations involving civilians carrying out the UN’s work rises to 87.5% (336 of 384).
In 2019, 84.3% (296 of 351) of the allegations received involved civilians (including those working for organizations paid by the UN to carry out its programmes).
The response of troop- and police-contributing-countries (TCCs and PCCs) to sexual exploitation and abuse committed by uniformed personnel has not improved. In 2020, TCCs and PCCs appointed a national investigating officer (NIO) in 63.3% (19 of 30) of the allegations for which the UN requested an NIO.[6] The same was done for 51% (26 of 51) of the allegations received in 2019 for which an NIO was requested, compared to 68.9% (31 of 45) in 2018 (31 of 45) and 63.9% in 2017 (23 of 36).
The lack of improvement in TCC/PCC response highlights the fact that the UN’s crisis of sexual exploitation and abuse is ongoing, and that the UN’s approach in this area is not working. As the baseline standard is so abysmal, the lack of progress itself is concerning.
Toward the beginning of his tenure, Secretary-General Guterres claimed, “When Member States fail to follow up after the United Nations refers cases for their action, I am ready to engage Heads of State and Government.” There is no evidence that he has done so.
As in past years, the UN has taken few actions against alleged perpetrators.
Interim action (including the withholding of UN payments, administrative leave, and detention by a national government) has been taken in response to 37.9% (25 of 66) of sexual exploitation and abuse allegations received by the UN in 2020.
Referral for criminal accountability remains “pending” in 3 of 8 cases of sexual abuse involving civilian peacekeepers.
Progress has continued to stall on initiatives that the UN touts as being central to its response to sexual exploitation and abuse.
Work on a “statement on the rights of victims” began in September 2018 with “consultations with the UN system.” In December 2020, the UN claimed that “Internal consultations on a draft statement began in July 2020 with a view to endorsement by the High-level Steering Group in December 2020.” According to the Special Measures Report, dated February 15, 2021, the draft statement is to be submitted to the High-level Steering Group sometime in 2021. It’s unclear why there have been so many delays.
At the beginning of his tenure, Secretary-General Guterres promised to meet personally with victims of sexual exploitation and abuse. All quarterly Fact sheets on the Secretary-General’s initiatives to prevent and respond to sexual exploitation and abuse, including the most recent (published on December 18, 2020), list the status of this promise as “October 2017; ongoing.”
It is misleading for the UN to claim, “The Secretary-General and the Victims’ Rights Advocate met confidentially and directly with victims of sexual exploitation and abuse,” as this suggests that Guterres has met with victims somewhat regularly since October 2017. This is not the case. He met with an unspecified number of victims in the Central African Republic in October 2017, but no other meetings between the Secretary-General and victims have been reported.
Public data on allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse remain incomplete and difficult to navigate. Both the table of allegations (peacekeeping) and non-peacekeeping database fail to provide complete, coherent, and truly transparent information regarding sexual exploitation and abuse allegations, investigations, and follow-up.
Many of the allegations listed in the non-peacekeeping database provide minimal information: for 25 of the 93 allegations received in 2020, the type, nature, and age of the victim(s) are all listed as “unknown,” “TDB,” or “other.” Many other allegations provide only partial information.
Meanwhile, the peacekeeping table of allegations continues to be plagued by a range of issues. These include:
A) Incomplete information
General. The non-peacekeeping database specifies the gender of the victim, the type of victim assistance rendered, the exact date of the incident, and the exact date of reporting. OIOS’ annual Activities in peace operations reports provide case numbers for the allegations on which they write reports and—in some instances—some details of the case. Each allegation in the table should include additional information, and have a tracking number (or list the case number for investigations that OIOS has undertaken) so that the table of allegations can be cross-checked with information published by OIOS.
Victim age. The UN’s definition of a minor (under 18) differs from the age of consent in some countries. The picture is further complicated by the specifics of Member States’ extraterritorial jurisdiction laws. The database should specify whether or not the victim was a minor at the time of the offense under the relevant national legal code(s), or simply specify the age of the victim at the time of the offense.
Investigation length. For investigations marked in the table as “pending,” it is unclear when the investigation was first opened (so we don’t know how long the investigation has been underway). For completed investigations, the table includes the length of the investigation (the number of days) but not when the investigation began or ended. The table of allegations should specify the start date of each investigation, not simply the number of days that a closed investigation was underway.
TCC/PCC follow-up. When a TCC or PCC refuses to appoint an NIO to a case (or otherwise refuses to respond appropriately to an allegation of sexual exploitation and abuse), the database does not describe what the UN has done to follow up. Some cases from as far back as 2015 still say “NIO appointed—pending,” leaving open the question of what (if anything) the UN has done to engage those countries.[7] The table of allegations should list all actions taken by the UN to follow up with TCCs that have not fulfilled their contractual obligations to respond appropriately to allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse. In other words, has the Secretary-General really “engaged heads of state” as promised?
B) Inaccessibility
It is not possible to download the data from the table of allegations into a spreadsheet, report, or other format that would facilitate quantitative analysis of the data; such features would be particularly helpful when analyzing the records of particular TCCs over time. The UN Conduct and Discipline Service previously told Code Blue that this and other readability changes to the table were “forthcoming.” Why have these changes not been implemented? The table of allegations should enable visitors to easily analyze the number and nature of allegations, as well as annual or quarterly trends, including by TCC/PCC.
C) Lack of transparency regarding civilian personnel.
The table does not indicate the nationality of alleged international civilian perpetrators, making it impossible for advocates to follow up on such cases. Each allegation against an international civilian perpetrator should list the nationality(ies) of the accused.
D) Undercounting the number of allegations and victims.
In the table of allegations’ data overview page and in Special Measures Reports, multiple allegations against the same perpetrator(s) are counted as one, single allegation. In 2020, there were 67 distinct allegations (not 66) and in 2019 there were 92 allegations (not the 80 reported by the UN). This means that the UN is not counting every incident and should come clean about the true total.
The table of allegations groups multiple allegations together under a single perpetrator, making it impossible to discern the total number of victims. For example, if an entry lists 1 perpetrator, 1 adult victim (rape) and 1 adult victim (transactional sex), there could be either one single victim (of both rape and transactional sex) or two different victims. The table of allegations should indicate the total number of unique victims when possible.
Many entries simply do not specify the number of victims, or note 0 victims. Each allegation in the table should specify the number of victims, or specify that the number of victims is unknown.
[1] The Conduct in UN Field Missions’ table of allegations and the Secretary-General’s Special Measures Reports count all offenses committed by the same perpetrator(s) as one, single allegation. In 2020, there were 67 distinct allegations (compared to 66 allegations claimed by the UN) and in 2019 there were 93 allegations (compared to 80 reported by the UN).
[2] According to the Special Measures Report, which uses data from December 31, 2020.
[3] UN personnel include individuals working for the UN Organization; implementing partners are excluded in this analysis unless otherwise specified.
[4] The UN defines implementing partners as “an entity to which a UN office or entity has entrusted the. implementation of a programme and/or project specified in a signed document, along with the assumption of responsibility and accountability for the effective use of resources and the delivery of outputs.”
[5] This figure does not include three allegations of sexual exploitation involving members of a formerly deployed non-United Nations security force.
[6] Data accessed March 19, 2021.
[7] The table of allegations does provide the number of communications sent by the UN to Member States requesting action on allegations, as well as the number of communications received by the UN from Member States relating to case follow up. It does not, however, detail the nature or consequences of those communications.
(UN Photo)