4 March 1999 Edition
The People's Tribunal
BY Ned Kelly
Opening the Belfast session of the People's Tribunal on Friday February 26 human rights activist Fr Des Wilson said it's aim was, ``to start a process by which the exact truth of what happened to our people will be recorded, gathered together and open to scrutiny and the people who were responsible for the damage to our people will have to be named.''
Speaking to AP/RN, Wilson said that those responsible for human rights violations had no place in the future public life of the Six Counties adding that in a future police service he'd hate to be helped across the road by an ex-RUC officer who was responsible for torture.
``Those responsible for crimes need to be identified,'' he continued, ``they must be named no matter how long it takes. The British must acknowledge what was done and who was used. War crimes are still being tried after 40-50 years, that must be done here.''
Those making submissions were advised to give details of their experiences and to identify those individuals present during the abuses, intimidation or harassment, ``in order to protect themselves from reprisals''.
Wilson said the Tribunal served two purposes. Firstly it was to build a people's archive that would not only serve as a creative process in justice and empowerment, but also to pave the way for progress on creating future policing and justice guarantees.
Secondly with the New Jersey based Lawyers Alliance for Justice in Ireland preparing a report for the US Congressional hearing of the Committee of Foreign Relations under chairperson Ben Gilman in April it is important keep pressure on the British to ensure that international human rights and legal standards are enshrined in the new policing and justice arrangements. The report, based on the Belfast meeting and others in Lurgan, Portadown, Derry and South Armagh, will also be forwarded to the United Nations.
Des Wilson said that beyond the power of collecting a generalised picture of the systematic abuses of the RUC and judicial process, it was important to, ``examine very carefully the record of all people involved in policing, military and government activity . . . to see whether these people are fit people to have any public office in the future.''
Raising the issue of how certain victims are treated differently by the state, Des Wilson continued, ``official bodies have been set up by governments in London and Dublin to deal with victims of the conflict here. Those official bodies will define who victims are and how they will be treated in the future.''
``But,'' he continued, ``these definitions will be in accordance with the interests of the two governments, not in the interests of all the victims. Governments have already shown they will disregard certain categories of victims - those tortured or abused while in custody of the state; those insulted or abused in their own homes or on the streets by state forces; those falsely accused or imprisoned; those processed through the Diplock courts, whose evidence was refused by judges while that of the RUC was accepted.''
Naming RUC officers, judges, police doctors and prison governors, Wilson said that the courts, judiciary and civil service, the institutions that supported the RUC must also be changed, as any new police service would end up corrupted. The role of those who were responsible for safe guarding the well-being of prisoners also needed examining.
He stressed those institutions that ``accepted procedures and evidence that is unacceptable'' and were, for political reasons, Diplock courts and judges had been set up and the governments had defined and targeted it's enemies, there were no guarantees that the same judges wouldn't agree to operate less than adequate procedure in the future.
He called for the case by case examination of past judgements delivered by those who presided over Diplock courts and said, ``no Diplock judge is acceptable in the future''.
The Lawyers heard submissions on behalf of or by 26 victims of RUC, British Army, judicial and prison brutality and injustice. They included submissions from ex-internee Martin Meehan who despite the awarding of exemplary damages arising from injuries received while interned is yet to see anyone disciplined.
Hooded-man Liam Shannon, also a victim of ongoing RUC targeting, told the Tribunal of the systematic torture and abuse he endured. Despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling that Shannon along with the 12 other hooded men had been subjected to `inhuman and degrading treatment', Shannon said he still didn't know ``half of what happened'', who was responsible or where they were now. The question arises, ``are those responsible still in the RUC''?
Despite judgements being given against the RUC in cases like these no disciplinary action or prosecutions had been brought. This was described as a ``running sore'' and caused raised eyebrows from the Lawyers Alliance who also stated that as a right a complaints procedure should allow for the ``effective and impartial review of the case''.
A representative from solicitors Madden and Finucane focused on the unaccountability of the RUC in relation to plastic bullets fired. Mr McMeneman, quoting the case of a West Belfast teenager who was shot point blank in the face with a plastic bullet by the RUC, ``RUC records failed to enable responsibility for the shooting to be traced back''. He said that no proper records of plastic bullet use existed so when it came to serious injury there might be compensation but no accountability. He also stressed the impact such unaccountability would have of on the ``uninhibited'' use of plastic bullets.
McMeneman also told the Tribunal of the RUC's history of altering or changing statements and tampering with video evidence.
The submission from Fr Joe McVeigh highlighted the RUC's role in increasing the distress of the family of Patrick Shanaghan and the RUC's response to the murder of two Nationalists by Loyalists in Portadown.
In a moving submission Mary Kennedy told the Tribunal about how first her husband's internment and then her own internment had left her six children, all under 14, without any parents. Her sister, similarly was interned leaving her children also without parents.
Solicitor Peter Madden attempted to put the history of human rights abuses into context, of Castlereagh, of the denial of the right to legal consultation, the collusion exposed by the Stevens inquiry and Brian Nelson. The ideology of common ground occupied by Unionists, Loyalists and the British. He also set the analogy of institutional sectarianism in the RUC with the institutional racism exposed by the MacPherson inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence.
The Tribunal spent a full day of exploring the full range of RUC abuses, clearly identifying the need for those responsible for human rights violations to be brought to book and that they should have no place in creating a peaceful future for Ireland. Names were named. It was another page in the development of forms of justice and democracy that will ultimately lead to peace and equality.
Opening the Belfast session of the People's Tribunal on Friday February 26 human rights activist Fr Des Wilson said it's aim was, ``to start a process by which the exact truth of what happened to our people will be recorded, gathered together and open to scrutiny and the people who were responsible for the damage to our people will have to be named.''
Speaking to AP/RN, Wilson said that those responsible for human rights violations had no place in the future public life of the Six Counties adding that in a future police service he'd hate to be helped across the road by an ex-RUC officer who was responsible for torture.
``Those responsible for crimes need to be identified,'' he continued, ``they must be named no matter how long it takes. The British must acknowledge what was done and who was used. War crimes are still being tried after 40-50 years, that must be done here.''
Those making submissions were advised to give details of their experiences and to identify those individuals present during the abuses, intimidation or harassment, ``in order to protect themselves from reprisals''.
Wilson said the Tribunal served two purposes. Firstly it was to build a people's archive that would not only serve as a creative process in justice and empowerment, but also to pave the way for progress on creating future policing and justice guarantees.
Secondly with the New Jersey based Lawyers Alliance for Justice in Ireland preparing a report for the US Congressional hearing of the Committee of Foreign Relations under chairperson Ben Gilman in April it is important keep pressure on the British to ensure that international human rights and legal standards are enshrined in the new policing and justice arrangements. The report, based on the Belfast meeting and others in Lurgan, Portadown, Derry and South Armagh, will also be forwarded to the United Nations.
Des Wilson said that beyond the power of collecting a generalised picture of the systematic abuses of the RUC and judicial process, it was important to, ``examine very carefully the record of all people involved in policing, military and government activity . . . to see whether these people are fit people to have any public office in the future.''
Raising the issue of how certain victims are treated differently by the state, Des Wilson continued, ``official bodies have been set up by governments in London and Dublin to deal with victims of the conflict here. Those official bodies will define who victims are and how they will be treated in the future.''
``But,'' he continued, ``these definitions will be in accordance with the interests of the two governments, not in the interests of all the victims. Governments have already shown they will disregard certain categories of victims - those tortured or abused while in custody of the state; those insulted or abused in their own homes or on the streets by state forces; those falsely accused or imprisoned; those processed through the Diplock courts, whose evidence was refused by judges while that of the RUC was accepted.''
Naming RUC officers, judges, police doctors and prison governors, Wilson said that the courts, judiciary and civil service, the institutions that supported the RUC must also be changed, as any new police service would end up corrupted. The role of those who were responsible for safe guarding the well-being of prisoners also needed examining.
He stressed those institutions that ``accepted procedures and evidence that is unacceptable'' and were, for political reasons, Diplock courts and judges had been set up and the governments had defined and targeted it's enemies, there were no guarantees that the same judges wouldn't agree to operate less than adequate procedure in the future.
He called for the case by case examination of past judgements delivered by those who presided over Diplock courts and said, ``no Diplock judge is acceptable in the future''.
The Lawyers heard submissions on behalf of or by 26 victims of RUC, British Army, judicial and prison brutality and injustice. They included submissions from ex-internee Martin Meehan who despite the awarding of exemplary damages arising from injuries received while interned is yet to see anyone disciplined.
Hooded-man Liam Shannon, also a victim of ongoing RUC targeting, told the Tribunal of the systematic torture and abuse he endured. Despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling that Shannon along with the 12 other hooded men had been subjected to `inhuman and degrading treatment', Shannon said he still didn't know ``half of what happened'', who was responsible or where they were now. The question arises, ``are those responsible still in the RUC''?
Despite judgements being given against the RUC in cases like these no disciplinary action or prosecutions had been brought. This was described as a ``running sore'' and caused raised eyebrows from the Lawyers Alliance who also stated that as a right a complaints procedure should allow for the ``effective and impartial review of the case''.
A representative from solicitors Madden and Finucane focused on the unaccountability of the RUC in relation to plastic bullets fired. Mr McMeneman, quoting the case of a West Belfast teenager who was shot point blank in the face with a plastic bullet by the RUC, ``RUC records failed to enable responsibility for the shooting to be traced back''. He said that no proper records of plastic bullet use existed so when it came to serious injury there might be compensation but no accountability. He also stressed the impact such unaccountability would have of on the ``uninhibited'' use of plastic bullets.
McMeneman also told the Tribunal of the RUC's history of altering or changing statements and tampering with video evidence.
The submission from Fr Joe McVeigh highlighted the RUC's role in increasing the distress of the family of Patrick Shanaghan and the RUC's response to the murder of two Nationalists by Loyalists in Portadown.
In a moving submission Mary Kennedy told the Tribunal about how first her husband's internment and then her own internment had left her six children, all under 14, without any parents. Her sister, similarly was interned leaving her children also without parents.
Solicitor Peter Madden attempted to put the history of human rights abuses into context, of Castlereagh, of the denial of the right to legal consultation, the collusion exposed by the Stevens inquiry and Brian Nelson. The ideology of common ground occupied by Unionists, Loyalists and the British. He also set the analogy of institutional sectarianism in the RUC with the institutional racism exposed by the MacPherson inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence.
The Tribunal spent a full day of exploring the full range of RUC abuses, clearly identifying the need for those responsible for human rights violations to be brought to book and that they should have no place in creating a peaceful future for Ireland. Names were named. It was another page in the development of forms of justice and democracy that will ultimately lead to peace and equality.