Northern Ireland: Action Needed on Human Rights Protection Amnesty International's Comments to the House Committee on International Relations Sub-committee on International Operations and Human Rights, October 1997

Amnesty International (International Secretariat) welcomes this opportunity to address members of the House International Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights on the role of human rights protection in the peace process in Northern Ireland. Amnesty International welcomes the resolution proposed by the Congress which situates the centrality of human rights within the peace process and raises a number of key concerns which are in line with many of our own concerns. The recommendations, if acted upon, would make a significant contribution to developing a lasting peace in Northern Ireland.

Current human rights concerns arise against a background of civil conflict since 1969 during which over 3,400 people have been killed. Republican and Loyalist armed groups are responsible for most of the deaths. Amnesty International has condemned arbitrary and deliberate killings, torture and hostage-taking by paramilitary groups and has repeatedly urged the paramilitary groups to end these human rights abuses.

The continued abrogation of basic human rights in Northern Ireland has played a central role in the conflict in Northern Ireland. Previous UK governments have hidden behind secrecy and internal inquiries to avoid being accountable for the human rights violations by its agents in Northern Ireland. They have ignored the recommendations of many international treaty bodies as well as some of their own internal inquiries. The protection of fundamental human rights has been seen as secondary to the maintenance of a high level of security.

The new government has an opportunity to reassert the primacy of the protection of human rights in Northern Ireland. The incorporation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is a first step towards implementing its international obligations. The government should move swiftly to establish a Human Rights Commission, which would have full and effective powers to strengthen human rights protection.

Amnesty International welcomes the commitments expressed in initial government statements to emphasize issues of fairness and justice in Northern Ireland. The organization believes strongly that the protection of human rights and the strengthening of a human rights culture are central to a lasting peace. However, Amnesty International also believes that a lasting peace has to be built on the basis of full accountability of the security forces for their actions and some measure of justice for the victims of these violations.

Given the large number of human rights violations perpetrated in Northern Ireland, there is a particular need for the new government to review a number of issues, including policing and emergency legislation provisions, with a view to increasing the protection of human rights in Northern Ireland.

One of the striking features about the human rights situation in the UK is the underlying assumption that one can provide less human rights protection to people in Northern Ireland than to people in England. The lower standards of justice have resulted in a lack of accountability, and measures need to be taken to ensure that all laws and procedures in the UK conform with international standards. This presentation will focus on just a few issues which blatantly illustrate this disparity.

1. Special Interrogation centers

There is no statutory basis for the existence of the special police interrogation centers in Northern Ireland, which are used for the detention of suspects arrested under emergency legislation -- the most notable of all being Castlereagh Holding Centre in Belfast. These centers have been the subject of many allegations of police ill-treatment and torture since the 1970s. Similar centers do not exist in the rest of the UK, and suspects arrested under emergency legislation are held in police stations and interrogated in the presence of their lawyers.

Given the oppressive nature of these centers in Northern Ireland, Amnesty International believes that Castlereagh and the other centers should be closed down and that suspects should be detained in designated police stations. In addition, the following safeguards should apply to such detentions:

a) the government should withdraw its derogation from the relevant provisions of the ICCPR and the European Convention and provide prompt judicial scrutiny of detentions;

b) legislation should be introduced giving lawyers immediate access to their clients, as well as allowing lawyers access to interrogations;

c) further safeguards should be introduced, including the audio and video recording of all interrogations.

Another vital safeguard is the introduction of a system to investigate complaints of police ill-treatment which would ensure that allegations are promptly, thoroughly, and independently investigated and that the perpetrators of ill-treatment are brought to justice. The government should urgently implement the recommendations of an independent review of the complaints procedures in Northern Ireland by Dr. Maurice Hayes, published in January 1977. Dr. Hayes recommended the appointment of a Police Ombudsman whose duty would be to investigate complaints against the police by using his or her own staff of independent investigators.

2. Diplock Courts

"Diplock "Courts" were established under emergency legislation in 1973 to deal with serious offenses linked to alleged terrorist activities. These single-judge and juryless courts do not exist in England, even though people in England are tried for the same kind of offenses. There are a number of people who have been convicted in these courts who claim to be victims of miscarriages of justice. Amnesty International has urged the government to review the functioning of the "Diplock Courts" to ensure that the following specific provisions are brought into conformity with international standards for fair trials:

*the lower standards for the admissibility of confession evidence;
*the lack of full disclosure by the prosecution to the defense of crucial evidence;
*the curtailment of the right of an accused to remain silent during interrogation or trial without negative inferences being drawn.

Amnesty International has monitored many trials over the years because of concerns that the lower standards of admissible evidence have led to unfair trials and wrongful convictions. Recently the organization welcomes the quashing of the conviction of Patrick Kane and continues to campaign for a review of the convictions of Sean Kelly and Michael Timmons, who were given life sentences in March 1990 in connection with the murder of two soldiers, known as the Casement Park cases. The organization also sent an observer to the appeal hearing of Christopher Sheals in April 1997; he was convicted in 1994 under the doctrine of common purpose in connection with the murder of a Protestant woman. The judgment in this case is still pending.

Most recently, Amnesty International has taken action on the case of Colin Duffy. Colin Duffy was arrested on 23 June 1997 and was held on remand for 3 1/2 months until his release on 3 October despite significant evidence, held in police possession from a very early stage, which indicated that he was not involved in the killing of two police officers in Lurgan on 16 July. This evidence included 12 statements supporting his alibi that he was not in the vicinity of the killings; the statement of an eyewitness that Colin Duffy did not match the height or build of the perpetrator; and reliable evidence that the prosecution's key unidentified witness was not at the scene as she claimed to be. Amnesty International wrote to the government, the prosecution and the police to express concerns about Colin Duffy's continued detention; the police's failure to suspend interviews to allow him to obtain legal advice; and the allegations that police officers had made disparaging comments to Colin Duffy and another arrested suspect about the lawyer.

Although Colin Duffy was released last week, Amnesty International believes that the case highlights critical flaws in the criminal justice system, in that there appear to be no checks on the soundness of charges brought by the RUC. The Director of Public Prosecutions told Amnesty International that he had no powers other than to request the RUC to expedite the sending of a preliminary police file on the investigation to him for review. In this case, once the DPP received the file, he dropped the charges on the basis of lack of sufficient evidence.

Colin Duffy had already been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. He was released from a life sentence when his conviction was quashed in July 1996 after the prosecution stated that it could no longer rely on the identification evidence of the key eyewitness. The case of Colin Duffy illustrates that politically motivated arrests and detentions are still being carried out.

3. Inquests

The right to life is a fundamental and non-derogable right. The European Court of Human Rights, in its judgment in the McCann and Others v. UK, (the Gibraltar Three) stated:

"A general legal prohibition of arbitrary killing by the agents of the State would be ineffective, in practice, if there existed no procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of the use of lethal force by State authorities. The obligation to protect the right to life under this provision ... requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force by, inter alios, agents of the State."

Amnesty International is concerned that the government is failing to protect the fundamental right to life because it is not meeting its obligation to effectively review the lawfulness of the use of lethal force by State authorities in Northern Ireland. The inquest system in Northern Ireland has been so severely restricted, first through legislation, and then through interpretation of the law and the rules by the courts, that it can no longer fulfill any useful role in determining the full circumstances of a disputed killing. Nor can it inquire into the legality of the actions taken by the security forces. In addition, the systematic use of Public Interest Immunity Certificates blocks the disclosure of crucial evidence and contributes to the lack of accountability of the security forces.

The inquest system in England and Wales is hampered by some restrictions that also apply in Northern Ireland, in particular that the victim's family does not receive legal aid, and that in many instances the lawyers are unable to receive the evidence before the inquest in order to prepare the questioning of witnesses. However, the inquest jury in England and Wales is able to reach a range of verdicts, including unlawful killing. And the persons allegedly involved in the death, be it police officers, soldiers, prison officers, are required to attend the inquest and to give oral testimony.

A number of disputed killings have been of concern to Amnesty International over the last few years, including those of Pearse Jordan, John McNeill et al, Patrick Shanaghan, and Liam Thompson. The inquests in all of these cases and in others have failed to examine the full circumstances in which the people died. Amnesty International urges the government to establish a wide-ranging judicial inquiry whose remit would be to recommend the establishment of a different public judicial procedure to examine disputed killings/deaths which would be in conformity with international standards.

4. Plastic Bullets

Amnesty International is concerned about the indiscriminate firing of plastic bullets by security forces, a method of crowd control used only in Northern Ireland. The organization is also concerned that the guidelines regulating the use of such bullets are less rigorous for the RUC than for the British Army and for police forces in the rest of the UK.

Although plastic bullets were introduced in 1973 as a non-lethal method of crowd control, they have led to 14 deaths and hundreds of injuries. In many instances the regulations governing the use of such potentially lethal bullets are not adhered to. The guidelines state that plastic bullets should only be aimed at the lower half of the body and, unless lives are at risk, should not be fired at a range of less than 20 meters. International standards, such as the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, require that law enforcement officials should avoid the use of force in the dispersal of assemblies or, where that is not practicable, should restrict such force to the minimum extent necessary; that the use of force should be in proportion to the seriousness of the offense; and that the deployment of weapons should be evaluated in order to minimize the risk of endangering uninvolved persons.

On 10 June 1997 the government announced that a large percentage of plastic bullets issued from early 1994 had velocities which were over the upper recommended limit. The faulty bullets had been withdrawn in April 1997 and replaced by stocks which did not exceed the stipulations. The higher velocity meant that the bullets would have hit their targets at excessive speed. The government statement did not say how many faulty plastic bullets had been issued, nor how many had actually been fired. However, a total of 7,437 plastic bullets were fired by the RUC and 1,424 by the British Army since the faulty plastic bullets were issued in May 1994. The government stated that 94 alleged injuries have been caused by plastic bullets since the beginning of 1994 and up to June 1997. It was also revealed that the Ministry of Defense had known since early 1996 that "some of the rounds were going marginally faster than the specified velocity, but the tests were not considered conclusive". The long delay in the withdrawal of this batch of faulty bullets has not been adequately explained by the government.

In September it was announced that another batch of plastic bullets had to be withdrawn because they were heavier than they should be. This calls into question the procedures for testing plastic bullets before they are issued.

In 1996 the Chief Inspector of Constabulary revealed that the RUC guidelines regulating the firing of plastic bullets were not consistent with those of ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) which apply to other police forces within the UK. He recommended that the RUC guidelines should be changed. The RUC Chief Constable objected to this recommendation; however a review by ACPO, in conjunction with the RUC, is expected to report later this year. Three sets of guidelines, which previously were secret, were made public in August 1997. The RUC guidelines are less rigorous than the guidelines for the British Army or those of ACPO. The ACPO and the British Army guidelines limit the range of circumstances: plastic bullets can only be fired to prevent a serious risk of loss of life, whereas the RUC guidelines allow the firing of plastic bullets to protect property or in the detection of crime. The ACPO and British Army guidelines require a more senior officer to authorize the use of bullets, whereas the RUC guidelines allow individual officers to use their own judgment.

The use of plastic bullets in Northern Ireland must be reviewed because of the following concerns: the apparent inability to produce batches which are not faulty; the concern expressed that these bullets cannot be properly aimed; the disproportionate firing of such bullets against the nationalist community; and the lack of accountability for the firing of such bullets.

The government must urgently introduce the training of the security forces in methods of public order policing consistent with internationally recognized standards regarding the use of force and firearms.

Dealing With the Past

Despite the many serious allegations of human rights violations in the past in Northern Ireland, there has been a marked failure by successive governments to carry out wide-ranging independent investigations into such allegations and to make the findings public. Amnesty International believes that a full investigation of the violations will help instill in the security forces a new sense of accountability to local residents for their actions and a willingness to act within the law. At the same time a fair and effective investigation will help reduce lingering fears amongst people who have long been subjected to a criminal justice system intended to cover up abuses rather than ensuring that perpetrators are brought to justice. There are a number of outstanding issues which have not been either properly investigated or publicly clarified. These include allegations of collusion between the security forces and Loyalist paramilitary groups, allegations of extrajudicial executions by the security forces, the killing of the lawyer, Patrick Finucane, and the killing of 13 unarmed people and the wounding of 15 others by British Army soldiers on 31 January 1972, known as "Bloody Sunday."

Action Needed for Human Rights Protection

Amnesty International believes that the following measures need to be taken in order to secure the protection of human rights in Northern Ireland:

*The UK should ensure that everyone has a prompt and effective remedy for the denial of the rights recognized in international treaties and other instruments.

*The UK should introduce legislation which would specifically regulate the use of lethal force.

*The government should establish a judicial inquiry with a view to making recommendations for a new mechanism for a public inquiry into disputed killings by the security forces.

*The government should review the use of plastic bullets.

*The government should carry out a fundamental review into all aspects of policing.

*The government should urgently implement an independent system to investigate complaints against the police in Northern Ireland.

*Castlereagh and the other interrogation centers should be closed down.

*Safeguards should be introduced for suspects arrested under emergency legislation.

*The government should ensure that all legislation, including emergency legislation, is in conformity with international standards.

*The government should withdraw its derogation from international treaties concerning the length of detention under emergency legislation.

*Reports of police inquiries into allegations of collusion and extrajudicial executions should be published.

*Prompt, independent and thorough investigations should be carried out into reports of serious human rights violations, including in the past.

*Paramilitary groups should cease human rights abuses.