HUMAN RIGHTS

Additional Guidance, 

Monitoring, and 

Training Could 

Improve 

Implementation of the 

Leahy Laws

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2013

GAO-13-866

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-866, a report to 

congressional requesters

September 2013

HUMAN RIGHTS

Additional Guidance, Monitoring, and Training 

Could Improve Implementation of the Leahy Laws

Why GAO Did This Study

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 

as amended, prohibits assistance to a 

unit of a foreign government’s security 

forces if the Secretary of State has 

credible information that such unit has 

committed a gross violation of human 

rights. DOD’s annual appropriation 

contains a similar provision that applies 

to DOD-funded training programs. 

State administers a vetting process to 

address these laws, commonly 

referred to as the Leahy laws. GAO 

was asked to review implementation of 

these laws. This report examines the 

extent to which (1) State and DOD 

provide guidance to their personnel to 

address the Leahy laws, (2) State 

monitors whether U.S. embassies have 

developed procedures to address the 

requirements of the Leahy laws, and

(3) State provides training to personnel 

who conduct human rights vetting. This 

is a public version of a sensitive but 

unclassified GAO report. Information 

State deemed sensitive has been 

redacted. GAO reviewed agency 

guidance and training materials and 

interviewed officials in Washington, 

D.C., and at eight U.S. embassies

selected in part based on whether they 

were in countries that State identified 

as countries of human rights concern. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that State (1) 

provide clarifying guidance for 

implementing the duty-to-inform 

requirement, (2) ensure that all U.S. 

embassies have human rights vetting 

SOPs that address the requirements in 

the Leahy laws, and (3) update its 

web-based training for personnel who

conduct human rights vetting to reflect 

the changes to the State Leahy law 

enacted in December 2011. State 

agreed with these recommendations. 

What GAO Found

The Department of State (State) and the Department of Defense (DOD) provide 

guidance to address the Leahy laws, but State’s guidance for implementing one 

requirement of the State Leahy law is unclear. State has used a variety of 

mechanisms to provide guidance to address the Leahy laws, including guidance 

to address six of seven new procedural requirements added to the State Leahy 

law in December 2011. State officials anticipate issuing guidance to address the 

seventh requirement by October 2013. DOD has provided guidance to address 

the DOD Leahy law through a 2004 Joint Staff message, and DOD officials said 

DOD personnel also follow State guidance. While State has provided guidance to 

embassies to address the duty-to-inform requirement of the State Leahy law, 

officials at six of the eight embassies GAO visited said that they would like 

additional guidance that clarifies how to implement the requirement. The duty-toinform requirement directs State to inform the foreign government if funds are 

withheld under the law and, to the maximum extent practicable, assist the foreign 

government in bringing those responsible to justice. With clarifying guidance, 

embassies will be better able to implement this requirement in accordance with 

the law, potentially increasing the effectiveness of the law as a tool for promoting 

human rights. 

State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL), which oversees 

human rights vetting policies and processes, does not monitor whether all U.S. 

embassies have developed standard operating procedures (SOPs) that address 

the Leahy laws’ requirements. Since at least 2003, State guidance has required 

embassies to develop human rights vetting SOPs, although these SOPs are not 

required by law. State guidance also instructs embassies to submit their SOPs to 

DRL for review. As of July 2013, DRL had reviewed SOPs for 43 of the 159 

embassies that conducted human rights vetting in fiscal year 2012. While the

eight embassies GAO visited had developed SOPs to implement State guidance, 

two developed SOPs for the first time and six updated SOPs during the course of 

GAO’s review. Further, GAO found that a majority of these SOPs, all of which 

DRL reviewed, did not address a requirement of the State Leahy law. Without 

more robust monitoring, it will be difficult for State to provide reasonable 

assurance that embassies have developed SOPs to help ensure the Leahy laws’ 

requirements are being implemented in each country. 

State provides training to human rights vetting personnel in Washington, D.C., 

and at U.S. embassies primarily through two web-based courses, but GAO found 

that both of these courses are outdated. DRL officials said that they also provide 

training on the Leahy laws and human rights vetting policies through other 

methods, such as briefings for State and DOD officials. State’s web-based 

courses provide information on the Leahy laws and instructions for using State’s 

vetting database. Twelve of the 15 personnel who conduct vetting in Washington, 

D.C., and 6 of the 8 human rights vetting coordinators at the eight embassies 

GAO visited stated that they had completed this training. However, neither webbased course has been updated to reflect new procedural requirements added to 

the State Leahy law in December 2011. Without up-to-date training that 

addresses these new procedural requirements, it will be difficult for U.S. 

personnel to be prepared to implement the law’s requirements. 

View GAO-13-866. For more information, 

contact Charles Michael Johnson, Jr. at (202) 

512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-866 Human Rights

Letter 1 

Background 4

State and DOD Have Provided Guidance to Address the Leahy 

Laws, but State’s Guidance for Implementing the Preexisting 

Duty-to-Inform Requirement Is Unclear 11

State Does Not Monitor Whether All U.S. Embassies Have Standard 

Operating Procedures That Address Leahy Law Requirements 19

State Offers Training to Personnel on Human Rights Vetting, but Its 

Web-Based Training Is Outdated 21

Conclusions 24

Recommendations for Executive Action 25

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 25

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 28

Appendix II Comments from the Department of State 32

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 36

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 37

Tables

Table 1: Comparison of the State and DOD Leahy Laws 4

Table 2: Mechanisms through which State and DOD Provide 

Guidance to Address the State and DOD Leahy Laws 12

Table 3: Status of State Guidance to Address Seven New 

Procedural Requirements Added to the State Leahy Law in 

December 2011 15

Table 4: Status of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) at the 

Eight U.S. Embassies We Visited during Our Review 

(October 2012 – September 2013) 20

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-866 Human Rights

Figure

Figure 1: U.S. Human Rights Vetting Process 10

Abbreviations

CIA Central Intelligence Agency

DOD Department of Defense

DRL Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

FAA Foreign Assistance Act of 1961

INVEST International Vetting and Security Tracking system

State Department of State

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

September 25, 2013

The Honorable Patrick Leahy

Chairman

Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel

Ranking Member

Committee on Foreign Affairs

House of Representatives

The United States provides billions of dollars in assistance annually to 

foreign countries to train and equip their security forces. This assistance 

helps to further U.S. foreign policy and security goals, such as supporting 

counterterrorism initiatives, promoting stronger bilateral relationships, and 

building foreign partner capability. To help ensure that U.S. assistance is 

not used to support human rights violators, Congress prohibits certain 

types of assistance from being provided to foreign security forces 

implicated in human rights abuses. Section 620M of the Foreign 

Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), known colloquially as the State Leahy law, 

prohibits the United States from providing assistance under the FAA or 

the Arms Export Control Act to any unit of the security forces of a foreign 

country if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit 

has committed a gross violation of human rights.1 Furthermore, in 

 

1

22 U.S.C. § 2378d. For the purposes of this report, we use the term “Leahy laws” to refer 

collectively to the prohibition on assistance to security forces in section 620M of the 

Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and the similar recurring provision in the 

Department of Defense appropriations act prohibiting funding for training programs 

involving units of security forces or foreign police, most recently enacted in section 8057 of 

the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013. We refer to the FAA 

provision as the “State Leahy law” and the DOD appropriations provision as the “DOD 

Leahy law,” respectively. State and DOD use the term “Leahy laws” for these 

requirements, introduced in legislation by Senator Leahy, in order to distinguish them from 

other human rights requirements.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

December 2011, Congress amended the State Leahy law to include 

seven new procedural requirements, including a requirement that the 

Secretary of State develop and periodically update procedures to make 

public, to the maximum extent practicable, the identity of those units 

prohibited from receiving assistance. Some members of Congress have 

raised questions regarding the implementation of these new requirements 

as well as how the Department of State (State) is informing foreign 

governments when funds are being withheld pursuant to the State Leahy 

law. Assistance subject to the State Leahy law includes State’s 

International Military Education and Training, Foreign Military Financing, 

and International Narcotics and Law Enforcement programs, among 

others. The Department of Defense’s (DOD) annual appropriation 

contains a similar provision, known colloquially as the DOD Leahy law, 

that applies to DOD-funded training programs, such as the Combating 

Terrorism Fellowship Program and Joint Combined Exchange Training.2

We have previously examined State’s and DOD’s implementation of the 

Leahy laws in the Persian Gulf and Pakistan and reported on these 

issues in 2011.3

You asked us to review the implementation of the State and DOD Leahy 

laws. This report examines the extent to which (1) State and DOD provide 

guidance to their personnel to address the Leahy laws, (2) State monitors 

whether U.S. embassies have developed procedures to address the 

requirements of the Leahy laws, and (3) State provides training to 

personnel who conduct human rights vetting.

This report is a public version of the sensitive but unclassified report that 

we are providing to you concurrently. State deemed some of the 

information in the corresponding report as sensitive but unclassified 

information, which must be protected from public disclosure. Therefore, 

this report omits sensitive background information about the human rights 

vetting process. This report addresses the same questions as the 

 

2

For the most recent version of the DOD Leahy law, see Section 8057 of the Consolidated 

and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, Pub. L. No. 113-6 (Mar. 26, 2013). 

3

See GAO, Persian Gulf: Implementation Gaps Limit the Effectiveness of End-Use 

Monitoring and Human Rights Vetting for U.S. Military Equipment, GAO-12-89

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 2011). In September 2011, GAO issued a sensitive but 

unclassified (SBU) report concerning the human rights vetting process associated with 

funding for Pakistan counterinsurgency efforts. 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

sensitive report, and the overall methodology used for both reports is the 

same. 

To address these objectives, we reviewed the State and DOD Leahy 

laws, guidance provided by State and DOD to address these laws, and 

standard operating procedures developed by the eight embassies we 

visited to implement the requirements of the laws. We interviewed State 

and DOD officials in Washington, D.C., who are responsible for 

developing guidance to implement these laws. We also interviewed State 

officials in Washington, D.C., responsible for conducting human rights 

vetting on behalf of State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and 

Labor (DRL) and the geographic bureaus. We conducted audit work in 

Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, 

Honduras, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, and Thailand. We selected this 

nongeneralizable sample of countries based on several factors, including 

the amount and type of U.S. assistance each country received, whether a 

country received both State- and DOD-funded assistance, and whether 

State considers a country to be a country of human rights concern. We 

took into consideration whether the State Office of the Inspector General 

had recently conducted an inspection in each country and the findings of 

those inspections with respect to the implementation of the State Leahy 

law. We also selected these eight countries to provide broad geographic 

representation. In each country, we interviewed U.S. embassy officials 

who coordinate and conduct human rights vetting, as well as U.S. officials 

who manage U.S. assistance programs and request vetting for individuals 

and units in foreign security forces to determine their eligibility to receive 

assistance. Where possible, we interviewed foreign government officials 

to determine their understanding of the State and DOD Leahy laws and 

the extent to which State informs them when assistance is withheld on the 

basis of the State Leahy law. Finally, we reviewed materials developed by 

State to train its personnel who conduct human rights vetting in 

Washington, D.C., and at U.S. embassies.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 to September 

2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
 

Page 4 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

The State Leahy law prohibits assistance to any unit of a foreign country’s 

security forces if the Secretary of State has credible information that such 

unit has committed a gross violation of human rights. The DOD Leahy law 

prohibits funds from being used to support training programs for security 

forces or police of a foreign country if the Secretary of Defense has 

received credible information from State that the unit has committed a 

gross violation of human rights. (See table 1 for a comparison of these 

two laws.) DOD, in consultation with State, must give full consideration to 

any credible information available to State relating to human rights 

violations by foreign security forces before it conducts training. According 

to State, these laws and the corresponding policies developed to enforce 

and supplement these laws are intended to leverage U.S. assistance to 

encourage foreign governments to prevent their security forces from

committing human rights violations and to hold their forces accountable 

when violations occur.

Table 1: Comparison of the State and DOD Leahy Laws

Department of State (State) Leahy law Department of Defense (DOD) Leahy law

Human rights 

prohibition

No assistance shall be furnished under the Foreign 

Assistance Act of 1961 or Arms Export Control Act 

to any unit of the security forces of a foreign 

country if the Secretary of State has credible 

information that such unit has committed a gross 

violation of human rights. 

None of the funds made available by this Act may be 

used to support any training program involving a unit of 

the security forces or police of a foreign country if the 

Secretary of Defense has received credible information 

from the Department of State that the unit has 

committed a gross violation of human rights. The 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary 

of State, shall ensure that prior to a decision to conduct 

any training program referred to in the human rights 

prohibition requirement, full consideration is given to all 

credible information available to the Department of 

State relating to human rights violations by foreign 

security forces.

Exception Prohibition does not apply if the Secretary of State 

determines and reports to specified committees 

that “the government of such country is taking 

effective steps to bring the responsible members of 

the security forces unit to justice.” 

Prohibition applies “unless all necessary corrective 

steps have been taken.” 

Background 

State and DOD Leahy Laws
 

Page 5 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

Department of State (State) Leahy law Department of Defense (DOD) Leahy law

Waiver None The Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the 

Secretary of State, may waive the prohibition if he 

determines that such a waiver is required by 

extraordinary circumstances. The law further requires 

DOD, no more than 15 days after it exercises any 

waiver, to submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees describing the extraordinary circumstances, 

the purpose and duration of the training program, the 

U.S. forces and the foreign security forces involved in 

the training program, and the information relating to 

human rights violations that necessitates the waiver.

Duty-to-inform In the event that funds are withheld from any unit 

pursuant to the law, the Secretary of State shall 

promptly inform the foreign government of the basis 

for such action and shall, to the maximum extent 

practicable, assist the foreign government in taking 

effective measures to bring the responsible 

members of the security forces to justice.

None

Procedural 

requirements added in 

December 2011

The Secretary of State shall establish, and 

periodically update, procedures to

• ensure that for each country State has a 

current list of all security force units receiving 

U.S. training, equipment, or other types of 

assistance;

• facilitate receipt by State and U.S. embassies 

of information from individuals and 

organizations outside the U.S. government on 

gross violations of human rights by security 

force units;

• routinely request and obtain such information 

from DOD, the CIA, and other U.S. 

government sources;

• ensure that such information is evaluated and 

preserved;

• ensure that when vetting an individual for 

eligibility to receive U.S. training, the 

individual’s unit is also vetted;

• seek to identify the unit involved when credible 

information of a gross violation exists but the 

identity of the unit is lacking; and

• make publicly available, to the maximum 

extent practicable, the identity of those units 

for which no assistance shall be furnished 

pursuant to the law.

None

Source: GAO analysis of the State and DOD Leahy laws.

Note: For the State Leahy law, see 22 U.S.C. § 2378d. For the most recent version of the DOD Leahy 

law, see Section 8057 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, Pub. L. 

No. 113-6 (Mar. 26, 2013).
 

Page 6 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

As shown in table 1, the State and DOD Leahy laws differ on several 

points, as follows:

• Human rights prohibition. The State Leahy law applies to all 

assistance—including training, equipment, and other activities—

whereas the DOD Leahy law applies only to funds that support 

training programs. According to DOD, the DOD Leahy law applies 

only to training, but DOD may make a policy decision to withhold 

equipment from foreign security forces that are ineligible to receive 

training under the DOD Leahy law. Furthermore, although the State 

and DOD Leahy laws restrict assistance to foreign security force units, 

both agencies’ policies apply the law to individuals as well as to units.

• Exception. The State and DOD Leahy laws both include exceptions 

that allow assistance to security forces for which State has credible 

information of having committed a gross violation of human rights, if 

the foreign government takes steps to address the violations. 

However, the exact language of these exceptions differs. The State 

Leahy law specifies that the law’s prohibition on assistance does not 

apply if the Secretary of State determines and reports to Congress 

that the foreign government “is taking effective steps to bring the 

responsible members of the security forces unit to justice.” The DOD 

Leahy law states that its prohibition applies “unless all necessary 

corrective steps have been taken.” Accordingly, State’s and DOD’s 

interpretations of the steps needed to lift their respective prohibitions 

on assistance reflect the two different laws.

State’s guidance notes that in the context of the State Leahy law, 

“effective steps” means that the foreign government must carry out a 

credible investigation and take steps so that individuals who are 

credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights 

face impartial prosecution or appropriate disciplinary action. 

Furthermore, State’s guidance specifies that transferring the offending 

individual or individuals from a unit does not constitute effective steps 

to bring the offending individuals to justice, nor does the mere opening 

of a formal investigation. State officials told us they are unaware of 

any case in which the Secretary of State has made the determination 

necessary to invoke the exception and provide assistance to an 

otherwise ineligible unit.

According to DOD, evaluation of “necessary corrective steps” is 

inherently fact-specific and includes consideration of the facts related 

to the gross violation of human rights in question and an assessment 
 

Page 7 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

of steps that could and should be taken to correct the situation. These 

steps could include removing the identified violator or violators from 

the unit to be trained, providing human rights training and law-of-war 

training, or some other combination of steps.4 According to DOD, the 

department has never proceeded with DOD-funded training to an 

otherwise ineligible unit on the basis that “all necessary corrective 

steps” have been taken by a foreign government.

• Waiver. The DOD Leahy law allows the Secretary of Defense, in 

consultation with the Secretary of State, to waive its restrictions if 

required by extraordinary circumstances, although it has never 

exercised this waiver. According to DOD, the department has 

generally interpreted “extraordinary circumstances” to mean important 

to the national security interests of the United States. The State Leahy 

law does not include a similar waiver.

• Duty-to-inform. The State Leahy law requires the Secretary of State to 

promptly inform the foreign government in the event that State 

withholds assistance pursuant to the State Leahy law, including 

informing the foreign government of the basis for such action. In 

addition, the law requires that State, to the maximum extent 

practicable, assist the foreign government in taking effective 

measures to bring the responsible members of the security forces to 

justice. The DOD Leahy law does not contain a comparable 

requirement.

• Procedural requirements added in December 2011. As mentioned 

earlier, in December 2011, the State Leahy law was amended by the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 to require State to establish, 

and periodically update, procedures for seven new areas. For 

example, the amendments require State to establish procedures to 

have a current list of all security force units receiving U.S. training, 

equipment, or other types of assistance for each country; and to make 

publicly available, to the maximum extent practicable, the identity of 

those units for which no assistance shall be provided because of 

credible information of a gross human rights violation. Congress made 

 

4

According to DOD guidance provided in June 2004, if a geographic combatant command 

assesses that corrective actions have been taken, and that training should be approved 

on that basis, the case will be subject to a joint review by State and DOD. 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

no changes to the DOD Leahy law in the most recent DOD 

appropriation.

Criteria for the prohibitions on assistance in the State Leahy law were 

also amended in December 2011. “Credible evidence” was changed to 

“credible information” and “gross violations of human rights” (plural) was 

changed to “a gross violation of human rights” (singular). According to 

State, these changes did not affect its standard for evaluating alleged 

human rights violations for the purposes of implementing its law.5

To address both the State and DOD Leahy laws and determine whether 

there is credible information of a gross violation of human rights 

committed by foreign security forces, State has established a U.S. human 

rights vetting process. The State-led process, as illustrated in figure 1, 

consists of vetting by personnel representing selected agencies and State 

offices at U.S. embassies6 and at State headquarters in Washington, 

D.C.,7 by State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) 

and the relevant geographic bureau.8 The personnel screen prospective 

recipients of assistance by searching relevant files, databases, and other 

sources of information for credible information about gross violations of 

human rights. Each embassy determines which agencies and State 

offices should participate in the embassy’s vetting process. State 

processes, documents, and tracks human rights vetting requests and 

results through its International Vetting and Security Tracking system 

 

5

See Section 7034(k) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-74 

(Dec. 23, 2011). 

6

U.S. embassies are generally responsible for conducting human rights vetting overseas. 

However, according to State Department officials, in some cases, human rights vetting 

may be conducted at U.S. consulates. For the purposes of this report, we use the term 

“embassy” to refer to both U.S. embassies and consulates overseas that conduct human 

rights vetting. 

7

Countries that State determines are functional democracies with no significant human 

rights concerns are eligible for Fast Track status. Candidates from Fast Track countries 

are only required to undergo vetting at the embassy where the candidates’ assistance is 

being arranged. 

8

State’s six geographic bureaus are the Bureaus of African Affairs, European and 

Eurasian Affairs, East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Near Eastern Affairs, South and Central 

Asian Affairs, and Western Hemisphere Affairs. 

U.S. Human Rights Vetting 

Process
 

Page 9 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

(INVEST), a web-based database.9 DRL is responsible for overseeing the 

vetting process and for developing human rights vetting policies, among 

other duties. According to data from INVEST, State conducted human 

rights vetting for more than 160,000 individuals and units across 159 

embassies in fiscal year 2012.10

 

9

State implemented INVEST worldwide in 2010 and 2011. Prior to the implementation of 

INVEST, State used cables to communicate vetting requests and results between State 

headquarters in Washington, D.C., and U.S. embassies around the world. 

10State policy does not require individual- and unit-level human rights vetting through 

INVEST for recipients of equipment and other assistance. Instead, State uses an alternate 

process, in which the anticipated recipients of equipment and other assistance are cleared 

through memos at the time that funding is allocated for the countries that will receive the 

assistance. In November 2011, we recommended that State implement individual- and 

unit-level human rights vetting for recipients of equipment. State agreed with the 

recommendation. As of July 2013, DRL officials said that the vetting of equipment is 

increasing worldwide and that DRL is hoping to achieve State-wide concurrence on 

implementation of the recommendation. See GAO-12-89. 
 

Page 10 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

Figure 1: U.S. Human Rights Vetting Process

Notes: The process depicted here applies to non-Fast-Track countries. Recipients of assistance in 

Fast Track countries only are required to be vetted at the U.S. embassy in the country where the 

assistance is being provided.
 

Page 11 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

State and DOD have used a variety of mechanisms to provide guidance 

for implementing the Leahy laws, including a guide to the human rights 

vetting process. In addition, State has provided guidance to address six of 

the seven new procedural requirements added to the State Leahy law in 

December 2011 and plans to issue guidance to address the seventh 

requirement by October 2013. However, State has provided unclear 

guidance on how to implement the preexisting duty-to-inform requirement 

of the State Leahy law, which requires State to promptly inform the 

foreign government in the event that assistance is withheld pursuant to 

the law and, to the maximum extent practicable, assist the foreign 

government in taking effective measures to bring the responsible 

members of the security forces to justice.11 Moreover, embassy officials 

said they would like additional guidance to clarify how they should 

implement this requirement.

As outlined in table 2, State and DOD have used multiple mechanisms to 

provide guidance to U.S. personnel responsible for implementing the 

Leahy laws.

 

1122 U.S.C. § 2378d(c). 

State and DOD Have 

Provided Guidance to 

Address the Leahy 

Laws, but State’s 

Guidance for 

Implementing the 

Preexisting Duty-toInform Requirement 

Is Unclear 

State and DOD Have Used 

a Variety of Mechanisms to 

Provide Guidance on 

Implementation of the

Leahy Laws
 

Page 12 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

Table 2: Mechanisms through which State and DOD Provide Guidance to Address the State and DOD Leahy Laws

Agency

Mechanism used

to provide guidance Description of guidance

Department

of State 

(State) 

Leahy human rights vetting guide Serves as a primary source of guidance for U.S. personnel who implement the 

State and DOD Leahy laws. Provides information on human rights vetting 

policy and process. Issued in April 2007 and updated in September 2012.

a

International Vetting and Security 

Tracking (INVEST) User Guide

Describes how U.S. personnel should record, process, and track human rights 

vetting requests using State’s web-based vetting system, INVEST. Issued in 

March 2010. 

INVEST bulletins Provide operational updates and announcements to U.S. personnel on human 

rights vetting policies and procedures. Issued as needed. Most recent bulletin 

issued in July 2013. 

Cables Communicate important directives regarding implementation of the State and 

DOD Leahy laws, such as how to implement a new requirement to vet an 

individual’s unit when vetting an individual. Issued as needed. Most recent 

cable on Leahy laws issued in January 2013.

Department

of Defense 

(DOD)

Joint Staff message Provides information to DOD personnel on how to verify, communicate, and 

document human rights vetting for DOD-funded training programs, among 

other things. Issued in June 2004.

b

Source: GAO analysis of State and DOD guidance.

c

a

The guide’s full title is Compliance with the State and DOD Leahy Laws: A Guide to Vetting Policy 

and Process. For the purposes of this report, we refer to the guide as the Leahy human rights vetting 

guide.

b

The Joint Staff assists the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in accomplishing his responsibilities 

in providing strategic direction, operation, and integration of U.S. land, naval, and air forces. The Joint 

Staff is composed of approximately equal numbers of officers from the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, 

and Air Force. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal military adviser to the 

President and is the senior ranking member of the Armed Forces.

c

According to DOD officials, DOD personnel also follow State’s human rights vetting guidance.

State has provided guidance to U.S. personnel using a variety of 

mechanisms, including a guide to the human rights vetting process, a 

user guide to the INVEST system, bulletins, and cables. State’s Leahy 

human rights vetting guide—a primary source of guidance for U.S. 

personnel responsible for implementing the Leahy laws—provides an 

overview of the human rights vetting policy and process and provides 

additional information on key terms in the State Leahy law including 

“security forces of a foreign country,” “credible information,” and “gross 

violation of human rights.” For information on how State guidance has 

addressed these key terms in the State Leahy law, see the textbox below.
 

Page 13 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

Source: State guidance and DOD Office of General Counsel.

The guide also provides guidance on what does and does not constitute 

taking effective steps to bring the responsible members of the security 

forces unit to justice, which is the only method by which an otherwise 

prohibited unit may once again receive assistance under the State Leahy 

law.12

As also noted in table 2, DOD’s Joint Staff provided guidance to DOD 

personnel on how to implement the DOD Leahy law in a June 2004 

 

12See table 1 in the background section for the exception to the restriction in the State 

Leahy law.

Key Terms in the State Leahy Law

Security forces of a foreign country. Department of State (State) guidance defines a “security force” as 

any division or entity (including an individual) authorized by a state or political subdivision to use force 

(including but not limited to the power to search, detain, and arrest) to accomplish its mission. Therefore, 

the guidance states that “security forces” could be units of law enforcement or the military. According to the 

Department of Defense (DOD) Office of General Counsel, DOD also adheres to this definition. However, 

DOD may sometimes request vetting for individuals or groups that would not constitute foreign security 

forces, such as a government bureaucrat. 

Credible information. State guidance provides latitude in evaluating the credibility of information and 

advises personnel conducting human rights vetting to exercise good judgment and common sense. It notes 

that major international nongovernmental organizations and most independent newspapers are considered 

to be relatively credible, whereas credibility among opposition groups and smaller nongovernmental 

organizations varies. According to DOD’s Office of General Counsel, while DOD retains legal authority for 

final decisions regarding specific cases, it relies on State’s judgment in assessing the credibility of available 

information. According to DOD, the department is working with State to ensure that it is able to play a more 

active role in State’s evaluation of the credibility of information on gross violations of human rights with 

regard to DOD-funded training events. 

Gross violation of human rights. State guidance notes that the Leahy laws do not contain a definition of 

“gross violations of human rights.” State, therefore, uses the definition included in Section 502B(d) of the 

Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as its working standard. It states that “gross violations of internationally 

recognized human rights include torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; 

prolonged detention without charges and trial; causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and 

clandestine detention of those persons; and other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, or the security of 

person.” State guidance further clarifies that this definition includes extrajudicial killing and politically 

motivated rape.
 

Page 14 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

message. The guidance addressed the law by, among other things, 

advising DOD personnel to accept individual or unit human rights vetting 

conducted by State and U.S. embassies, defining the types of training 

that are subject to the law, and establishing procedures for verifying that 

units and individuals that receive DOD-funded training have been vetted. 

The guidance also established a process through which a geographic 

combatant command,13 which oversees training, may refer to the DOD 

Joint Staff a unit or individual it believes has completed or can complete 

the necessary corrective steps in order to receive U.S. assistance.14

According to DOD officials, DOD personnel also follow State’s human 

rights vetting guidance.

In addition, State officials in DRL and the geographic bureaus responsible 

for conducting human rights vetting in Washington, D.C., said they 

answer questions from embassies related to vetting policy and technical 

questions related to the vetting process. DRL officials said they also 

provide information on vetting policies and procedures to interested DOD 

officials at the combatant commands. Furthermore, State guidance 

requires embassies to develop standard operating procedures (SOPs) for 

human rights vetting, which account for the particular needs and 

circumstances of the embassy. The SOPs provide additional guidance to 

embassy personnel responsible for implementing these laws.

State has provided guidance to address six of the seven new procedural 

requirements added to the State Leahy law in December 2011 and plans 

to issue guidance to address the seventh requirement by October 2013. 

These procedural requirements direct State to establish and periodically 

update procedures to, among other things, ensure that it has a current list 

of all security force units receiving U.S. government training, equipment, 

or other types of assistance for each country, and, to the maximum extent 

practicable, to make publicly available the identity of units that are 

prohibited from receiving U.S. assistance. Table 3 provides information 

 

13DOD has six geographic combatant commands that have defined areas of operation 

and provide unity of command over all United States forces in a specific region. DOD’s six 

geographic commands are U.S. Africa Command, U.S. Central Command, U.S. European 

Command, U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and U.S. Southern 

Command. 

14See table 1 in the background section for the ”necessary corrective steps” exception in 

the DOD Leahy law.

State Has Provided 

Guidance to Address 

Almost All of the New 

Procedural Requirements 

Added to the State Leahy 

Law in December 2011
 

Page 15 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

on these seven new procedural requirements and our assessment of 

whether State has provided guidance to address them.

Table 3: Status of State Guidance to Address Seven New Procedural Requirements Added to the State Leahy Law in 

December 2011 

Required procedures

added to State Leahy law State’s effort to address new procedural requirement

GAO assessment:

Has State

provided guidance?

Ensure that for each country State 

has a current list of all security 

force units receiving U.S. training, 

equipment, or other types of 

assistance

State disseminated a November 2012 cable that provided guidance to 

embassies on how they should report this information, including the 

level of information needed about units that had received assistance. 

The cable required all embassies to provide this list by March 31, 2013. 

As of July 2013, 97 percent of embassies had submitted the 

information, according to DRL officials. DRL officials said that they plan 

to update this information annually.

Yes

Facilitate receipt by State and U.S. 

embassies of information from 

individuals and organizations 

outside the U.S. government about 

gross violations of human rights by 

security force units

State’s Leahy human rights vetting guide advises embassy officials to 

use as many credible sources of information as are available for human 

rights vetting. These information sources include, among others, 

outreach to local human rights nongovernmental organizations, 

reporters, and on-the-ground contacts. State is in the process of 

developing a web portal where individuals and entities outside the U.S. 

government may submit information regarding human rights abuses. 

DRL officials said that they plan for this web portal to be operational by 

the end of December 2013. 

Yes

Routinely request and obtain 

information related to gross 

violations of human rights by 

security force units from DOD, CIA, 

and other U.S. government sources

State’s Leahy human rights vetting guide outlines the human rights 

vetting process, which includes searches of databases that draw upon 

other U.S. government sources. 

Yes

Ensure that such information is 

evaluated and preserved

State’s Leahy human rights vetting guide provides information to U.S. 

personnel responsible for conducting human rights vetting on how to 

evaluate derogatory information found through the vetting process. The 

guide also advises U.S. personnel to input or upload all appropriate 

vetting data and correspondence to INVEST. 

Yes

Ensure that when vetting an 

individual for eligibility to receive 

U.S. training the individual’s unit is 

also vetted

State disseminated an April 2012 cable that provided guidance to 

embassies on how to implement this requirement, including guidance 

on how to identify the relevant unit name for the purpose of vetting 

individuals nominated for training. The cable also provided talking 

points for embassies to use when informing foreign governments of the 

new requirement and established a 30-day transition period for 

implementation of the requirement. State subsequently incorporated 

this information into its updated Leahy human rights vetting guide, 

which State issued in September 2012.

Yes
 

Page 16 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

Required procedures

added to State Leahy law State’s effort to address new procedural requirement

GAO assessment:

Has State

provided guidance?

Seek to identify the unit involved 

when credible information of a 

gross violation exists but the 

identity of the unit is lacking. 

State’s Leahy human rights vetting guide advises embassies to use 

available resources to investigate derogatory information found through 

the human rights vetting process. The guide also states that DRL 

officials responsible for vetting in Washington, D.C., may seek to, 

among other things, determine whether the candidate for assistance is 

the same unit or individual that committed a gross violation of human 

rights. DRL officials said they plan to issue a cable by October 2013 

with additional guidance on this requirement. 

Yes

Make publicly available, to the 

maximum extent practicable, the 

identity of units that are prohibited 

from receiving U.S. assistance due 

to credible information regarding 

gross violations of human rights

DRL officials said they are in the process of developing guidance for 

this required procedure, including guidance on when it would not be 

practicable to make this information public, for example, when 

protecting embassy sources. DRL officials anticipate that this guidance 

will be completed by October 2013.

No

Source: GAO analysis of State guidance and interviews with DRL officials.

Legend: CIA = Central Intelligence Agency; DOD= Department of Defense; DRL = Bureau of 

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; INVEST = International Vetting and Security Tracking system; 

State = Department of State.

While State has provided guidance to embassies for addressing the dutyto-inform requirement—a legal requirement that existed prior to the 

December 2011 changes to the State Leahy law—the guidance is 

unclear. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state 

that federal agencies should, among other things, design and document 

internal control activities, such as policies and procedures, to help ensure 

compliance with applicable laws and regulations.15 The duty-to-inform 

requirement of the State Leahy law directs the Secretary of State to (1) 

promptly inform the foreign government when funds are withheld because 

of credible information of gross violations of human rights and (2) to the 

maximum extent practicable, assist the foreign government in taking 

effective measures to bring the responsible members of the security 

forces to justice.16 With regard to the first part of the requirement, State 

guidance directs embassies to notify foreign governments of units or 

individuals against whom there is credible information of having 

committed gross violations of human rights and to provide information on 

 

15GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).

1622 U.S.C. § 2378d(c). 

State Guidance to 

Embassies on How to 

Implement the Preexisting 

Duty-to-Inform 

Requirement Is Unclear
 

Page 17 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

the offense. However, State guidance does not specify whether the 

requirement to inform foreign governments applies when a unit or 

individual is suspended from receiving assistance, rather than rejected,

due to human rights vetting.17 With regard to the second part of the 

requirement, State guidance directs embassies to offer assistance to 

bring the responsible persons to justice, if appropriate, and advises 

embassies to encourage governments to prosecute those credibly 

believed to have committed a gross violation of human rights under local 

law through a legitimate and transparent judicial process. The guidance 

also notes that the type of assistance offered by the embassy depends on 

the circumstances. However, State guidance does not provide examples 

of the types of assistance that could be offered to the foreign government 

to help prosecute these violators or the circumstances under which the 

assistance might be provided.

State personnel at six of the eight embassies we visited said they would 

like additional guidance from State that clarifies how they should 

implement the duty-to-inform requirement, and foreign government 

officials in four of the eight countries we visited18 said they would like 

more information on why the United States withheld assistance from a 

unit or individual. For example, a State official at one of the embassies we 

visited stated that DRL needed to provide more detailed guidance on how 

to implement the duty-to-inform requirement, because his current 

embassy did not have a clear process for implementing it. A State official 

at one of the other embassies we visited stated that he would like more 

guidance from DRL on how to implement the second part of the duty-toinform requirement, because he did not know to whom in the foreign 

government the embassy should offer assistance in bringing to justice the 

members of the security forces responsible for committing a gross 

violation of human rights. For example, he said he did not know whether 

the embassy should offer assistance to high-level or mid-level 

government officials in such instances. In addition, foreign government 

officials in four of the eight countries we visited told us that they would like 

to know if the embassy had credible information of a gross violation of 

 

17State’s guidance notes that a unit or individual should be suspended if the embassy 

cannot confirm or rule out the derogatory information found on a unit or individual in time 

to accommodate a training event. 

18We met with foreign government officials in six of the eight countries we visited. 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

human rights about their security forces so that they could further 

investigate the allegations.

We found that the SOPs of the embassies we visited contained 

inconsistent information on how to address the first part of the duty-toinform requirement, which directs State to inform the foreign government 

when funds are withheld due to credible information of a gross violation of 

human rights. Specifically, among the SOPs of the eight embassies we 

visited, five required the embassy to inform the foreign government in 

cases of rejections and suspensions, one required the embassy to inform 

the foreign government only in cases of rejections, and one restated the 

duty-to-inform requirement and did not specify whether the embassy 

should inform the foreign government in cases of rejections, suspensions, 

or both. The eighth embassy had not developed procedures addressing 

this requirement as of April 2013. Determining whether the eight 

embassies we visited had complied with the duty-to-inform requirement 

was outside the scope of our review.

In January 2013, State issued a 6-month action plan, in which it noted 

that it was developing talking points, case studies, and successful 

remediation examples to help embassies engage with foreign 

governments to implement the duty-to-inform requirement. As of August 

2013, DRL had not yet issued this guidance. DRL officials did not provide 

an estimate of when this guidance would be completed and did not 

indicate whether the guidance would clarify whether embassies should 

inform the foreign government in the case of suspensions. Clearer 

guidance on the duty-to-inform requirement would better enable U.S. 

embassies to inform foreign governments of human rights vetting results 

in accordance with the law and might therefore increase the effectiveness 

of the State Leahy law as a tool for leveraging U.S. assistance to promote 

human rights with foreign partners.
 

Page 19 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

State does not monitor whether all U.S. embassies have required SOPs 

that address State and DOD Leahy law requirements. We found that all of 

the eight embassies we visited either created or updated their SOPs 

during the course of our review, and most of these SOPs did not address 

a particular requirement of the State Leahy law. Since at least 2003, State 

guidance has required embassies to develop written SOPs that describe 

each embassy’s human rights vetting process, although these SOPs are 

not required by law. According to State guidance, the SOPs should be 

approved by the Deputy Chief of Mission and reviewed by DRL.19 State 

guidance notes that SOPs help to facilitate the transfer of responsibilities 

when embassy personnel rotate to new assignments and provide 

documentation of a well-established vetting process.20 Furthermore, State 

guidance directs every government official involved in the human rights 

vetting process, including those who arrange training for foreign security 

forces, to read the embassy’s SOPs. Officials at several embassies we 

visited told us that they rely on SOPs as an important source of 

information regarding human rights vetting policy and procedures. 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that

organizations should establish internal controls, such as monitoring 

systems, to provide reasonable assurance that the agency is complying 

with applicable laws and regulations, among other things.21

Although State’s guidance instructs embassies to submit their SOPs to 

DRL for review, DRL officials told us that its office does not require 

embassies to submit their SOPs for review. Instead, DRL reviews the 

SOPs of embassies that voluntarily submit them. According to DRL 

officials, DRL does not have the authority to require embassies to submit 

their SOPs to DRL for review. However, the State Foreign Affairs Manual

states that all embassies are responsible for maintaining systems of 

controls, which can include SOPs.22 In July 2013, in response to our 

request, DRL officials developed a list of embassies that had voluntarily 

submitted their human rights vetting SOPs to DRL for review. This list 

 

19The Deputy Chief of Mission is the second highest ranking diplomat, after the 

Ambassador, assigned to an embassy or other diplomatic mission. 

20State Foreign Service Officers typically change assignments every 1 to 3 years. 

21GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

22U.S. Department of State, Foreign Affairs Manual, vol. 2, 2 FAM 020, Management 

Controls (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 25, 2013). 

State Does Not 

Monitor Whether All 

U.S. Embassies Have 

Standard Operating 

Procedures That

Address Leahy Law 

Requirements 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

indicated that DRL had reviewed SOPs for 43 of the 159 embassies that 

conducted human rights vetting in fiscal year 2012. DRL does not 

proactively monitor, and therefore cannot readily determine, whether the 

remaining 116 embassies have written SOPs in place.

Furthermore, we found that while all eight of the embassies we visited 

had SOPs in place as of June 2013, two did not have SOPs in place at 

the start of our review. The remaining six embassies updated their SOPs 

during the course of our review. See table 4 for the status of the 

development of SOPs at the eight embassies we visited.

Table 4: Status of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) at the Eight U.S. Embassies We Visited during Our Review (October 

2012 – September 2013) 

U.S. embassy Status of the embassy’s SOP development

Date the SOP was

created or last updated

Mexico City, 

Mexico

Embassy officials said that they updated the embassy’s SOP in anticipation of 

our visit to ensure that the SOP addressed all of the requirements of the 

Departments of State (State) and Defense (DOD) Leahy laws. 

Updated between October 2012 

and February 2013

Guatemala City, 

Guatemala

Embassy officials said that they created the embassy’s SOP in anticipation of our 

visit. Prior to creating the SOP, the embassy had not documented its human 

rights vetting process. 

Created January 2013

Tegucigalpa, 

Honduras

An embassy official said that the embassy updated its SOP in anticipation of our 

visit. Each agency and section responsible for vetting at the embassy created an 

SOP. 

Updated January 2013

Bangkok, 

Thailand

Embassy officials said that the embassy has been updating its SOP annually 

since a 2010 review of the embassy’s human rights vetting process by the State 

Inspector General. 

Updated March 2013 

Kuala Lumpur, 

Malaysia

Embassy officials said that they created the embassy’s SOP in January 2013. Created January 2013

Dhaka, 

Bangladesh

An embassy official said that the embassy created its first SOP in the summer of 

2012 and updated it in September 2012 and March 2013. 

Updated March 2013 

Kinshasa, 

Democratic 

Republic of the 

Congo

Embassy officials said that they updated the embassy’s SOP in anticipation of 

our visit. Embassy officials said the previous version of the embassy’s SOP was 

based on an outdated vetting process that the embassy no longer followed. 

Updated June 2013

Nairobi, Kenya Embassy officials said that they updated the embassy’s SOP in October 2012. 

Embassy officials said that they first created the embassy’s SOP in 2010. 

Updated October 2012 

Source: GAO interviews with embassy officials, embassy SOPs, and State documentation.

In addition, DRL officials told us that they review embassy SOPs to 

ensure that they address the Leahy laws’ requirements and are 

consistent with State’s overall human rights vetting policies and 

procedures. However, we found that a majority of the SOPs for the 

embassies we visited, all of which were reviewed by DRL, did not address 
 

Page 21 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

a requirement in the State Leahy law which directs State to assist the 

foreign government, to the maximum extent practicable, in taking effective 

measures to bring the responsible members of the security forces to 

justice. Specifically, among the SOPs for the eight embassies we visited, 

three addressed this requirement. Without more robust monitoring, it will 

be difficult for State to provide reasonable assurance that the embassies 

have developed SOPs to help ensure the laws’ requirements are being 

implemented in each country.

State provides training to human rights vetting personnel through two 

web-based courses: “INVEST: Leahy Vetting in Washington” (for vetting 

personnel in Washington, D.C.) and “INVEST: Leahy Vetting at Post” (for 

vetting personnel at U.S. embassies). However, we found that both of 

these web-based courses are outdated. According to the course 

descriptions, this training is designed to provide participants with the 

knowledge and skills necessary to complete the human rights vetting 

process for individuals and units nominated to receive U.S.-funded 

assistance. The courses provide an introduction to the laws and policies 

that serve as the basis for the human rights vetting process, as well as 

training on how to use INVEST to perform and document vetting. 

Although the courses are optional, DRL encourages vetting personnel to 

complete them. Both courses are offered as self-paced, web-based 

distance learning through State’s Foreign Service Institute in Washington, 

D.C., to provide flexibility for vetting personnel posted at embassies 

around the world. Twelve of the 15 personnel responsible for human 

rights vetting in Washington, D.C.,23 and six of the eight human rights 

vetting points of contact at the eight embassies we visited, told us that 

they had completed their respective courses. Training is free of charge for 

eligible State employees with vetting responsibilities, and other agency 

employees may take the training if they pay a fee to State’s Foreign 

Service Institute. State’s Office of the Inspector General has previously 

noted, and DRL officials acknowledged, that the cost of the course may 

serve as a deterrent for non-State vetting personnel who wish to take the 

course. DRL officials told us they have requested that the Foreign Service 

Institute make the course available free of charge, but the Foreign 

Service Institute has not agreed to do so.

 

23These 12 personnel included 7 of 7 DRL vetting personnel and 5 of 8 vetting personnel 

in the geographic bureaus. 

State Offers Training 

to Personnel on 

Human Rights Vetting, 

but Its Web-Based 

Training Is Outdated
 

Page 22 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

DRL officials said that they also provide training on the laws and policies 

related to human rights vetting through other means. For example, DRL 

officials told us they teach a 1-hour module that addresses the State 

Leahy law and the vetting process as part of a 1-week course on politicalmilitary affairs offered three times a year by the Foreign Service Institute. 

DRL officials noted that this course is primarily intended for supervisory 

staff, some of whom may play a role in the human rights vetting process 

during their careers. The political-military affairs course is not specifically 

designed to target individuals with human rights vetting responsibilities 

but focuses on the broad scope of political-military work and how it relates 

to national security policy. According to DRL officials, human rights 

classes offered through the Foreign Service Institute also include a 

module on the State Leahy law. According to DRL officials, they recently 

developed a briefing that also provides an overview of the State and DOD 

Leahy laws and explains State’s policies and processes related to human 

rights vetting. DRL officials told us they had delivered the briefing to DOD 

officials from all six geographic combatant commands and U.S. officials 

from selected embassies, including those who had concerns or questions 

about the implementation of the State and DOD Leahy laws. On July 9, 

2013, DRL officials made the information from the briefing publicly 

available by posting it on the official U.S. government website for human 

rights related information.24 Finally, human rights vetting personnel in 

Washington, D.C., and at embassies we visited also said that they 

received on-the-job training to prepare them to fulfill their responsibilities. 

For example, one official who conducts human rights vetting in 

Washington, D.C., said that she learned how to conduct searches and 

process cases through INVEST from her predecessor.

We found that State’s two web-based courses for human rights vetting 

personnel—one for officials based in Washington, D.C., and one for 

officials at overseas embassies—have not been updated to reflect 

changes to the State Leahy law enacted by Congress in December 2011, 

and corresponding changes to State’s vetting policies. Training materials 

used in the web-based course for Washington-based vetting personnel 

were first completed in July 2010 and have not been updated since that 

time. Training materials used in the web-based course for embassybased vetting personnel were completed in March 2010 and updated in 

 

24U.S. Department of State, Leahy Vetting: Law, Policy, Process, April 15, 2013, accessed 

August 28, 2013, 

http://www.humanrights.gov/2013/07/09/an-overview-of-the-leahy-vetting-process/. 
 

Page 23 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

March 2011. As a result, neither web-based course reflects changes to 

the language of the State Leahy law or includes information on the seven 

new procedural requirements added in December 2011, such as the 

requirement to establish procedures for ensuring that when vetting an 

individual for eligibility to receive assistance, that individual’s unit is also 

vetted, or the requirement to establish procedures for making publicly 

available, to the maximum extent practicable, the identity of units for 

which no assistance shall be provided.

According to officials from DRL, they are aware that the course materials 

need to be updated. DRL officials said that changes to the training must 

be coordinated through the Foreign Service Institute and the contractor 

that helped develop the course. In November 2012, DRL provided the 

Foreign Service Institute updates to the web-based course for vetting 

personnel at overseas embassies that reflect the changes to the law in 

December 2011, but DRL officials do not know whether the Foreign 

Service Institute will make the changes. DRL, however, has not submitted 

updates to the web-based course for vetting personnel in Washington, 

D.C., that reflect the changes to the State Leahy law in December 2011. 

DRL officials said they would like to make more extensive updates to the 

training, but they currently lack the funding to do so. We acknowledge 

that State is operating in a constrained fiscal environment, but up-to-date 

training that addresses the new procedural requirements in the State 

Leahy law is critical for providing U.S. personnel with the skills and 

information necessary to implement the law. Without updated training, 

State runs the risk that U.S. security assistance might be used 

inappropriately because its personnel have not been adequately trained 

on the State Leahy law and State’s corresponding policies.

In January 2013, DRL issued a 6-month action plan, which included the 

goal of increasing knowledge of the State Leahy law and its requirements 

across the agency. To this end, DRL stated that it would work with the 

Foreign Service Institute to integrate training on the State Leahy law into 

courses for political officers, regional security officers, deputy chiefs of 

mission, and ambassadors, in addition to existing segments in the human 

rights and political-military affairs courses. The action plan also noted that 

DRL would work with the Foreign Service Institute to update the existing 

web-based courses on human rights vetting. Finally, DRL stated that it 

would continue to conduct outreach to embassy leadership through 

regional planning conferences and consultations, including those 

involving DOD.
 

Page 24 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

The State and DOD Leahy laws are intended to help ensure that billions 

of dollars in U.S. assistance provided annually to foreign security forces 

are not used to support human rights violators. According to State, the 

laws and corresponding policies for enforcing these laws also are 

intended to encourage accountability and professionalism in foreign 

security forces by leveraging U.S. assistance to encourage foreign

governments to prevent human rights violations and hold violators 

accountable. However, a lack of clear guidance for addressing the dutyto-inform requirement of the State Leahy law, limited monitoring of 

embassy SOPs, and outdated training makes it difficult for State to fully 

meet the laws’ objectives. For example, State’s guidance to embassies 

on how they should implement the diplomatically sensitive duty-to-inform 

requirement is unclear. With clearer guidance, U.S. embassies would be 

better able to inform foreign governments of human rights vetting results 

in accordance with the law, potentially increasing the effectiveness of the 

State Leahy law as a tool for leveraging U.S. assistance to promote 

human rights with foreign partners.

Furthermore, although State guidance requires embassies to develop 

SOPs for implementing human rights vetting, the State office responsible 

for overseeing the vetting process, DRL, does not proactively monitor 

whether U.S. embassies worldwide have SOPs that address the 

requirements in the State and DOD Leahy laws. Therefore, it is difficult for 

State to provide reasonable assurance that each embassy has developed 

SOPs to help ensure the Leahy law requirements are being implemented. 

State officials at two of the eight embassies we visited said that they had 

developed their procedures for the first time during the course of our 

review, which suggests that other embassies—among the 159 embassies 

worldwide that conduct human rights vetting—may not currently have 

procedures in place. 

Training helps to ensure that human rights vetting personnel have the 

information and skills necessary to carry out their responsibilities and is 

particularly critical given the frequent turnover in personnel responsible 

for conducting human rights vetting at U.S. embassies. However, the 

web-based courses that State uses to prepare its personnel at U.S. 

embassies overseas and in Washington, D.C., to conduct human rights 

vetting do not reflect new procedural requirements added to the State 

Leahy law in December 2011 and corresponding modifications to State’s 

human rights vetting policies. Without up-to-date training, it will be difficult 

for human rights vetting personnel to be adequately prepared to 

implement these new requirements, thereby limiting the effect of the law.

Conclusions 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

To help ensure that State addresses the requirements of the Leahy laws, 

we recommend that the Secretary of State take the following three 

actions:

• provide clarifying guidance for implementing the duty-to-inform 

requirement of the State Leahy law, such as guidance on whether 

U.S. embassies should or should not notify a foreign government in 

cases of suspensions;

• ensure that all U.S. embassies have human rights vetting standard 

operating procedures that address the requirements in the Leahy 

laws; and

• update the web-based training for personnel who conduct human 

rights vetting to reflect the changes to the State Leahy law enacted in 

December 2011.

We provided a draft of this report to State, DOD, the Department of 

Justice, and the U.S. Agency for International Development for their 

review and comment. State and DOD provided comments, which we have 

reproduced in appendixes II and III, respectively. State also provided 

technical comments, which we incorporated in this report, as appropriate. 

The Department of Justice and the U.S. Agency for International 

Development did not provide comments.

State agreed with our recommendation to provide clarifying guidance for 

implementing the duty-to-inform requirement. State noted that it has 

communicated the duty-to-inform requirement to embassies through 

multiple sources of guidance, and while it believes that embassies are in 

the best position to determine the level and form of notification that will 

address the requirement, it agreed that further guidance on the 

application of the requirement would be worthwhile. State said that it is 

working on instructions to address this need and enhance overall 

compliance with the requirement. 

State also agreed with our recommendation to ensure that all U.S. 

embassies have human rights vetting standard operating procedures that 

address the requirements in the Leahy laws. However, the planned 

actions outlined by State do not directly address our recommendation. 

For example, rather than take steps to determine whether all embassies 

have required SOPs in place, State said that it would instead modify its 

guidance and no longer require DRL to review embassy SOPs. State 

added that it would continue advising embassies that request assistance 

in developing SOPs, with a particular emphasis on the SOPs for 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 26 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

embassies in select, high-priority countries. State also noted that it would 

continue to monitor embassies’ compliance with vetting requirements by 

monitoring vetting activity that is recorded in INVEST, which it deems a 

better means of ensuring compliance than reviewing SOPs. While 

monitoring INVEST may provide useful information on embassies’ vetting 

activities, INVEST does not serve as a repository for embassies’ SOPs 

and monitoring INVEST is not a substitute for ensuring that embassies 

have SOPs that address the requirements in the Leahy laws. As we note 

in this report, SOPs help to facilitate the transfer of responsibilities when 

embassy personnel rotate to new assignments and provide 

documentation of a well-established vetting process. SOPs also outline 

the role of the embassy in addressing legal requirements not addressed 

through the vetting process, such as the duty-to-inform requirement in the 

State Leahy law. Moreover, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government states that organizations should establish internal controls, 

such as monitoring systems, to provide reasonable assurance that the 

agency is complying with applicable laws and regulations. However, DRL 

does not proactively monitor, and therefore cannot readily determine, 

whether all embassies have SOPs in place. We therefore believe that 

State should take additional actions to fully address our recommendation

for State to ensure that all embassies have SOPs.

State agreed with our recommendation to update its web-based training 

for personnel who conduct human rights vetting to reflect changes to the 

State Leahy law enacted in December 2011. State explained that it was 

finalizing updates to the two web-based courses and expected to 

complete them soon. 

Although our report did not make any recommendations to DOD, DOD 

said that it supported our recommendations to State. In addition, DOD 

noted that it was working with State to implement the DOD Leahy law 

effectively, among other things. 

We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional 

committees, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Attorney General

of the United States, and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for 

International Development. In addition, this report will be available at no 

charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 
 

Page 27 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix IV.

Charles Michael Johnson, Jr.

Director, International Affairs and Trade
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 28 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

The objectives of this review were to examine the extent to which (1) the 

Department of State (State) and the Department of Defense (DOD) 

provide guidance to their personnel to address the Leahy laws, (2) State 

monitors whether U.S. embassies have developed procedures to address 

the requirements of the Leahy laws, and (3) State provides training to 

personnel who conduct human rights vetting.

To address all three objectives, we interviewed officials at State’s Bureau 

of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL); geographic bureaus; and 

the Office of the Legal Advisor. We also interviewed DOD officials at the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense, United States Southern Command, 

and United States Africa Command; and we obtained information on how 

DOD interprets its law from DOD’s Office of General Counsel. We 

conducted fieldwork at the U.S. embassies in the following eight cities: 

Bangkok, Thailand; Dhaka, Bangladesh; Guatemala City, Guatemala; 

Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; 

Mexico City, Mexico; Nairobi, Kenya; and Tegucigalpa, Honduras.

We selected a nongeneralizable sample of countries to visit by first 

identifying countries that received assistance subject to both the State 

and DOD Leahy laws, were classified by State as non-Fast-Track 

countries,1 and were categorized by State as being countries of human 

rights concern. We then ranked these countries within their respective 

geographic regions according to the total number of different types of 

assistance subject to the Leahy laws they received in fiscal years 2010 

and 2011. We looked for natural breaks in the data to identify the 

countries that had received the greatest number of different types of 

assistance within each region. Among these, we selected countries that 

provided a broad geographic representation based on multiple criteria, 

such as the amount of assistance the country received (i.e., both high and 

low where possible), the number of agencies or offices responsible for 

conducting human rights vetting for each country (i.e., both high and low 

where possible), and the number of vetting cases processed for each 

country (i.e., both high and low where possible). In general, we eliminated 

a country from consideration if the State Office of the Inspector General 

had conducted an inspection of the U.S. embassy in that country within 

 

1

A Fast Track country is one that State has identified as having a favorable human rights 

record and no serious systematic problems, a human rights history such that it is not likely 

that there are gross violators of human rights in the country’s security forces, and a 

functioning democracy. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 29 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

the past 2 years. We made an exception for one country because the 

recent embassy inspection had raised concerns about the embassy’s 

human rights vetting process, and we determined these findings 

warranted follow-up. In each country, we met with U.S. embassy officials 

from State, DOD, and, as relevant, the Departments of Homeland 

Security and Justice, and the U.S. Agency for International Development 

to understand these agencies’ roles in the human rights vetting process. 

Where possible, we also met with representatives of each country’s 

military and police forces to understand their familiarity with the Leahy 

laws and the U.S. human rights vetting process, as well as how the U.S. 

embassy communicates vetting results to them. We also met with 

representatives of human rights nongovernmental organizations in each 

of the countries we visited to understand the extent of their role in the 

U.S. embassy’s human rights vetting process.

To examine the extent to which State and DOD provide guidance to their 

personnel to address the Leahy laws, we reviewed State guidance, 

including the Leahy human rights vetting guide; the International Vetting 

and Security Tracking (INVEST) User Guide; multiple cables from State 

communicating directives to embassies regarding the implementation of 

the State and DOD Leahy laws; and INVEST bulletins providing updates 

to human rights vetting policies, procedures, and tools. We reviewed 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

2 We also 

reviewed a 6-month action plan issued by State in January 2013 to 

address challenges with the implementation of the State Leahy law. We 

reviewed a Joint Staff message issued by DOD in June 2004 that 

provided guidance on human rights verification for DOD-funded training of 

foreign security forces. Furthermore, we reviewed the State3 and DOD4

Leahy laws. We interviewed State officials at DRL responsible for 

overseeing the human rights vetting process as well as the 15 State

officials from DRL and the State geographic bureaus responsible for 

vetting in Washington, D.C., and who serve as the primary contacts for 

questions from vetting personnel at U.S. embassies. In addition, we 

completed a content analysis to determine whether State had established 

 

2

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

3

22 U.S.C. § 2378d. 

4

For the most recent version of this provision, see Section 8057 of the Consolidated and 

Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, Pub. L. No. 113-6 (Mar. 26, 2013). 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 30 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

procedures that addressed or did not address the seven new procedural 

requirements of the State Leahy law. To complete the analysis, one 

analyst reviewed State guidance and determined whether the guidance 

contained procedures that addressed or did not address each of the 

procedural requirements. A second analyst then reviewed the first 

analyst’s assessment and any disagreements in the determinations were 

resolved through discussion. We also conducted an analysis to determine 

how the standard operating procedures (SOPs) for each of the eight 

embassies we visited addressed the first part of the duty-to-inform 

requirement, which directs State to inform the foreign government when 

funds are withheld due to credible information of a gross violation of 

human rights.5 We completed this content analysis using the same 

content analysis procedures described above.

To examine the extent to which State monitors whether U.S. embassies 

have developed procedures to address the requirements of the Leahy 

laws, we interviewed State officials from DRL and the eight embassies we 

visited. We reviewed guidance provided by State that requires embassies 

to develop SOPs and the SOPs developed by each of the eight 

embassies we visited. We also reviewed Standards for Internal Control in 

the Federal Government.

6 Furthermore, we reviewed State’s Foreign 

Affairs Manual to determine State policies for maintaining systems of 

management controls.7 We also conducted an analysis to determine 

whether the SOPs for each of the eight embassies we visited contained 

procedures that addressed the second part of the duty-to-inform 

requirement in the State Leahy law, which directs State to assist the 

foreign government, to the maximum extent practicable, in taking effective 

measures to bring the responsible member of the security forces to 

justice. We completed this content analysis using the same content 

analysis procedures described above.

To examine the extent to which State provides training to personnel who 

conduct human rights vetting, we interviewed DRL officials who oversee 

human rights vetting policies and processes, as well as State officials in 

DRL and the geographic bureaus responsible for vetting in Washington, 

 

5

22 U.S.C. § 2378d(c). 

6

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

7

U.S. Department of State, Foreign Affairs Manual, vol. 2, 2 FAM 020, Management 

Controls (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 25, 2013). 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

D.C. We also interviewed U.S. officials responsible for vetting at the eight 

embassies we visited. We reviewed the training materials for the two 

web-based courses DRL offers U.S. personnel responsible for vetting in 

Washington, D.C., and at embassies. We reviewed the descriptions of 

these courses, which note that they were designed to provide participants 

with the knowledge and skills necessary to complete the human rights 

vetting process for individuals and units nominated to receive U.S.-funded 

assistance. In addition, we reviewed briefing materials developed by DRL 

that provide an overview of the State and DOD Leahy laws and explain 

State’s policies and processes related to human rights vetting.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 to September 

2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Comments from the

Department of State

Page 32 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

Appendix II: Comments from the

Department of State

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix.
Appendix II: Comments from the

Department of State

Page 33 GAO-13-866 Human Rights
Appendix II: Comments from the

Department of State

Page 34 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

See comment 1.
Appendix II: Comments from the

Department of State

Page 35 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

Following are GAO’s comments on the Department of State’s letter dated 

September 10, 2013.

1. We revised footnote 10 to indicate that, although State policy does not 

require the use of INVEST to conduct individual- or unit-level human 

rights vetting for recipients of equipment, State uses an alternate 

memo-based process to review and clear these recipients. 

GAO Comments
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 36 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Error! No text of specified style in document.

Page 37 GAO-13-866 Human Rights

Charles Michael Johnson, Jr., (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Hynek Kalkus (Assistant 

Director), Jon Fremont, Drew Lindsey, and Kira Self made key 

contributions to this report. Ashley Alley, Debbie Chung, Etana Finkler, 

and Michael Silver also provided assistance.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(321000)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.