5 December 1993. Brian Duffy (15), John Todd (31). In taxi cab, Ligoniel, Belfast. AK47 and shot-gun. UDA/UFF.
14 April 1994. Theresa Clinton (33). In home, Lr Ormeau Road, Belfast. AK47 rifle. UDA/UFF.
26 April 1994. Joseph McCloskey (53). Killed in home, New Lodge Road, Belfast. Browning 9 mm pistols. UDA/UFF.
27 April 1994. Paul Thompson (25). In friend’s car, Springfield Park, Belfast. AK47 rifle. UDA/UFF.
8 May 1994. Rose Ann Mallon (70). In sister’s home near Dungannon. AK47 rifle. UVF.
17 May 1994. Éamon Fox (40), Gary Convey (24). At place of work, North Queen Street, Belfast. AK47 rifle. UVF.
17 June 1994. Cecil Dougherty (30), William Corrigan (32). At place of work, Rathcoole, Belfast. AK47 rifles. UDA/UFF
18 June 1994. Barney Greene (87), Éamon Byrne (39), Patrick O’Hare (35), Adrian Rogan (34), Don McCreaner (59), Malcolm Jenkinson (52). In public house, Loughinisland, Co. Down. AK47 rifles. UVF.
10 August 1994. Harry O’Neill (60). In place of work, off Castlereagh Road, Belfast. Browning 9 mm pistol.
There have also been many attempted killings using such weaponry which have resulted in serious injuries.
The Search for Truth, 1994
Preliminary thoughts on a Campaign for the Right to Truth, 1994
We are now in a period of transition, if we accept the permanency of the present cease-fires. Such transition has parallels in South American countries, South Africa and post-communist régimes.
The transition period here is called the peace process. It may be useful to accept that peace is founded on truth, justice and charity. Commissions for Truth were established with some success in some other countries during a period of transition. A Commission for Truth in a transition period must not delay in making investigations. It has to be independent and credible. It would demand considerable talent and resources. Secondly, will effective urgent investigations, prosecution and sentencing continue in the likelihood of an ‘amnesty’?
It will be in the interest of the three warring parties in the conflict, republicans, loyalists and the state, to draw a line through the violations of human rights of the past twenty-five years, including killings and murders. There will probably be a de facto undeclared amnesty. This will be connected with phased demilitarisation on all sides, the release of prisoners, no serious investigation or prosecution of those linked with killings in the past twenty-five years, the return to the north of those on the ‘wanted’ list, the delivering up of missing bodies. Immunity to further prosecution will include not only those responsible for casualties of war (members of state forces, paramilitaries and innocents caught in shootings and bombings) but also those who carried out blatant sectarian murders.
There is no hope, I think, of a powerful Commission for Truth unless it is agreed on by the Irish and British governments and the political parties who sit around the negotiation table. But paramilitaries and the state excuse the crimes they commit themselves – all maintain a high moral ground, the state, of course, the highest. It will be in the interest of all political sides to agree on an unspoken amnesty. A Commission for Truth goes against that.
Even though it is highly improbable that the negotiators will even contemplate such a commission, the proposal to set one up should be put in writing to the two governments and the proposal published. At least that establishes publicly the principle that concerned citizens do not want a cover-up. In the absence of a Commission for Truth, is there a substitute?
1. The very question of the necessity for the search for truth should at least be put before the public. The pursuit of truth re events of the last twenty-five years is something positive. Truth helps a peace process and has healing effects; in countries where this has not happened trauma remained and serious difficult political situations followed.
2. Justice and truth groups should attempt to put on record in the next few years the many violations of human rights that occurred here.
(a) In 1973 Penguin books published Political Murder in Northern Ireland by Martin Dillon and Denis Lehane. Malcolm Sutton has recently written An Index of Deaths from the Conflict in Ireland 1969–1993. It would be helpful to have a combination of the type of material in these two books, an expansion on the ‘index’ giving more details of the deaths and whether or not prosecutions took place. Besides information in newspapers, magazines, books already published and radio and television documentaries, there is a wealth of information to be gathered from the victims’ families, from living witnesses and from solicitors’ papers; if these sources are not tapped in the next few years, vital evidence will be lost.
(b) Individual books or in-depth studies on Bloody Sunday and many other killings by the state forces should be published. The Relatives for Justice hope to record in picture and story the deaths of all the children in the ‘Troubles’. A lot of writing has still to be done on collusion; at some time in the future members of the secret British forces will break rank and give part of the inside story. A detailed study has still to be written on the failed system of inquests in Northern Ireland.
(c) Even though, as I believe, there will be an unspoken but de facto amnesty, organisations and individual families should still pursue cases of state killings and sectarian killings of obviously innocent people in their homes and places of work. If, despite pressure, the police do not carry out vigorous investigation, it may be necessary for solicitors to have recourse to civilian actions and international bodies.
(d) Although the urgency in the transition period is to deal with truth, a new civil rights movement will be necessary to work for justice in the long term: justice re security, legal justice, social justice, equality of treatment, parity of esteem. Part of this campaign should be the revoking of all emergency laws, the establishment of a restructured police force, strict regulations re the appointment of judges, magistrates and coroners.
In October 1994, awaiting the setting up of a governmental Commission for Truth, a Campaign for the Right to Truth was initiated after consultation with and support of the following bodies:
1. Relatives for Justice
2. United Campaign against Plastic Bullets
3. Bloody Sunday Justice Group
4. Cullyhanna Justice Group
5. Casement Accused
6. Voice of the Innocent – Ballymurphy Seven
7. The Pat Finucane Centre, Derry
8. The Dublin–Monaghan Justice Group.
The Aims and Objectives of the Campaign for the Right to Truth
Introduction
At a time when people are engaged in a process of healing and understanding, we believe that peace must be based on truth, justice and charity. Without these, political agreement will almost certainly be impossible. We note that whereas paramilitary organisations and political parties associated with them in Ireland have indicated their regret and remorse over their contribution to the deaths and suffering of innocent people, the British government refuses to acknowledge or apologise for the deaths and suffering of innocent people it has caused.
The Campaign for the Right to Truth seeks to win an acknowledgement by the British government that over the past twenty-five years it acted unlawfully and unjustly on many occasions.
We believe that victims of state violence and the public have the right to know the truth about the actions of the state and its agencies. We believe such an acknowledgement will have enormous moral power and help secure a better future for ourselves and our children. We believe that as victims and as citizens we have the right to know fully what injustices were done by the state and its representatives. Only when we know the truth can we identify the remedies needed to secure that these things never happen again.
We believe that the right to truth is:
(a) the inalienable right of all citizens.
(b) historically and ethically necessary for every society.
(c) necessary for the emotional healing of our people and the process of building a just society
.
(d) essential for full freedom of expression for both the individual and the media.
(e) necessary to maintain the dignity and identity of the dead and of those who have suffered.
Objectives
The Objectives of the Campaign for the Right to Truth are:
1. A full, public, comprehensive and binding acknowledgement by the British government that many of the activities carried out by the state and its representatives were unlawful. In particular this includes murder, collusion with paramilitary organisations to commit unlawful acts, including murder, the unlawful imprisonment and detention of those innocent of any crime, and the use of violence, torture, inhuman and degrading treatment.
2. A full identification of those responsible for authorising and carrying out such unlawful acts.
3. The right of access to all information concerning unlawful acts carried out by the state and its representatives.
4. A complete independent investigation into all unlawful acts by the state and its agents.
On 11 April 1995 the Campaign for the Right to Truth made oral submissions to the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Dublin Castle, 11 April 1995. Those who made the submissions were: Fr Raymond Murray (Introduction), Mrs Emma Groves (Plastic and Rubber Bullets), Tommy Carroll (The Armagh Killings), Eilish McAnespie (The Execution of Aidan McAnespie), Alice O’Brien (Collusion: The Dublin and Monaghan Bombings), Martin Finucane (The Murder of the Human Rights Lawyer Pat Finucane), Jim Kelly (Miscarriages of Justice: The Casement Accused ).
The following is the submission of Martin Finucane.
The Murder of the Human Rights Lawyer Pat Finucane
This submission is based on the proposition that the reconciliation between the people of Ireland will not be possible until issues relating to the abuse of basic human rights are addressed by both governments in their search for political agreement between unionists and nationalists as to the future structure of government of the island as a whole.
Pat Finucane was the Catholic solicitor who was shot dead in front of his wife and three children on 12 February 1989. He was born on the Falls Road in Belfast in 1949 and was a student at Trinity College Dublin in 1969 when his family in Belfast was forced out of their home by loyalists at the start of the present ‘troubles’. He pursued his studies at Trinity and, upon completion of his degree, returned to Belfast and commenced his study of law, eventually qualifying as a solicitor. He began to practice in 1979.
Throughout his short career he represented many people, Protestants and Catholics and anyone who requested his services. He turned no one away. He was known, however, for his fearless representation of nationalists and republicans in seeking the protection of law and establishing their rights in a hostile political system which discriminated against such clients since the establishment of the state itself. There is no doubt that his fearless representation caused resentment to the authorities who were attempting to paint a picture to the outside world that any complaints of human rights abuses in the north of Ireland were not only unfounded but were in fact part of a widespread propaganda campaign by those intent on destabilising the state. Pat Finucane was murdered on 12 February 1989 by the loyalist paramilitary group the UFF (UDA) directed by the British army agent Brian Nelson. Brian Nelson was also a member of the British army.
Pat’s murder followed shortly after the remark made by Douglas Hogg in the House of Commons on 17 January 1989. Hogg said, ‘There are in Northern Ireland a number of solicitors who are unduly sympathetic to the cause of the IRA’ and he went on to say, ‘I state it on the basis of advice that I have received, guidance that I have been given by people who are dealing in these matters.’
The murder was passed off by British government officials as just another sectarian killing carried out by lawless thugs. Tom King, the Northern Ireland Secretary of State at the time, said that Pat Finucane was murdered by ‘the other side’, implying that loyalists had attacked a republican in the on-going sectarian ‘troubles’. In February 1993, the New York based Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, published Human Rights and Legal Defence in Northern Ireland: The Intimidation of Defence Lawyers, The Murder of Pat Finucane. It states that the ‘Lawyers Committee mission found credible evidence suggesting collusion between elements within the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries in the Finucane murder.’
Pat Finucane’s murder was no ‘ordinary’ sectarian murder. Pat Finucane was murdered because he defended those who were seen as enemies of the state. He was murdered because he was successful in many challenges to British authority in the north.
The British government was at war with the IRA and the republican movement. The loyalist paramilitaries were allies of the British government in this war. They carried out attacks against those enemies of the state as well as against ordinary Catholics. The work of Pat Finucane encapsulated the widespread abuses of British rule in the north of Ireland during the present ‘troubles’.
Loyalists undoubtedly murdered Pat Finucane. But was the murder sanctioned by the British government?
Was it planned by the British military and carried out as directed by British soldier, Brian Nelson?
Why did Douglas Hogg make his statement in the House of Commons on 17 January 1989, three weeks before Pat’s murder?
Why did he refuse to give any further details when pressed to do so?
Who were the advisers he referred to? Did the RUC, whose officers threatened to have Pat Finucane murdered by loyalists, advise Douglas Hogg?
In short, what is the connection between RUC death threats to Pat Finucane, Douglas Hogg’s statement, Brian Nelson’s role in the British army and the murder of Pat Finucane?
Is the fact that he was murdered with a British army gun just a coincidence? Is there a connection?
Why does the British government refuse to hold a public judicial inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane when there is great public concern both in Ireland and abroad about their role in his murder?
Why does the British government refuse to give reasons for refusing to hold such an inquiry?
Are Douglas Hogg and his advisers and Brian Nelson and his superiors reluctant to give evidence at such an inquiry?
Are they reluctant to submit to cross-examination?
In order to achieve lasting peace in Ireland, reconciliation between the two traditions on the island is essential. Loyalists must sit down with republicans eventually. Unionists must sit down with nationalists eventually. A framework for the future government of the island of Ireland must be agreed between the two traditions eventually, otherwise the conflict will never be resolved. However, there are unresolved deaths of civilians caused by British soldiers and policemen which require satisfaction.
The compliance with internationally recognised documents enshrining fundamental rights and freedoms is a matter for governments. The right to life is the most important right of all and the investigation of deaths involving government agents must also be carried out in compliance with internationally recognised norms.
The British government must address the issues raised as it is obliged to do. It must answer questions asked and investigate properly any death which the public at large attributes to them or to their servants or agents. No satisfactory resolution of the conflict can be achieved until all these matters are dealt with satisfactorily.
Postscript
In October 1997 Mr Dato Param Cumaraswamy, the United Nations special reporter on the independence of judges and lawyers, paid a ten-day visit to Britain and the north of Ireland to investigate complaints and to look into the killing of Pat Finucane. At the end of his visit he said there ‘seemed to be truth’ to the allegations by defence lawyers in the north that they had been subjected to harassment and intimidation by police officers and that the RUC made threats through the lawyers’ clients while they were in RUC interrogation centres. Mr Cumaraswamy accused the RUC of not treating the situation seriously. He called for an independent inquiry into Pat Finu
cane’s murder. Suspicion of security force involvement had ‘not been allayed’. There were serious suspicions that the state knew the lawyer was a target and did not fulfil its duty to protect him. He said his final report would be submitted to the UN Commissioner on Human Rights in 1998.
Cumaraswamy’s report on Northern Ireland, published as an addendum to his fourth annual report (98 paragraphs) on 5 March 1998, called for an independent judicial inquiry into Pat Finucane’s killing which he details at some length. He also called for an independent and impartial investigation of all threats to legal counsel in Northern Ireland.
In paragraph 21 of his report he writes, ‘The Chief Constable (Ronnie Flanagan) alluded to an agenda in which paramilitary organisations ensured that detainees remain silent and alleged that solicitors may be involved in conveying this message to the detainees. Further he stated that there is in fact a political divide in Northern Ireland and part of the political agenda is to portray the RUC as part of the unionist tradition. These allegations concerning police intimidation and harassment of solicitors is part and parcel of this agenda. The Assistant Chief Constable also admitted that during the course of an interrogation an officer may express the view that the solicitor is providing bad advice to the client and not acting in his interest, for instance, by advising the client to remain silent.’
Cumaraswany says that Brian Nelson claims in his prison diary that as early as December 1988 he informed the Force Research Unit of British Military Intelligence that Pat Finucane was targeted. Nelson provided the murderers with a ‘P-card’ three days before they killed him. The RUC denied that any information regarding the planned murder of Finucane was passed on to them. Stevens has publicly stated that he knows ‘absolutely’ who killed Pat Finucane. Cumaraswamy wrote to Stevens on 27 November 1997 asking whether the military knew that the killing of Finucane was planned by the loyalists and if so, did the military inform the RUC. If they did not tell the RUC, then why not, and why did the military not warn Finucane/or provide protection for him? If the RUC was told, why was Finucane not provided with police protection or warned of the threat?
State Violence Page 27