Mr. Patrick Corrigan:

I will pick up on the events of recent months. As members are aware in September 2013, when Amnesty published this research, the five Executive parties in Northern Ireland met in earnest under the auspices of Dr. Richard Haass and Professor Meghan O'Sullivan. With regard to these talks, Amnesty’s focus was on the strand dealing with the past. We have provided the committee with our full official response to the proposals in the draft Haass agreement of 31 December 2013. Our response focuses on the proposed establishment of an historical investigations unit, HIU, and an independent commission for information retrieval, ICIR. I will comment on particular aspects of the draft proposals.

We believe the Haass talks draft agreement provides a solid basis on which progress can, and should, be made. With respect to the HIU, the Haass proposals importantly highlight the need for a mechanism capable of carrying out investigations compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights in an independent manner and, crucially, which can command the confidence of the entire community in Northern Ireland. We therefore believe efforts should now be made to introduce legislation to finally establish an effective investigatory mechanism capable of securing a measure of truth and justice for victims of human rights violations and abuses. Furthermore, as a number of cases have cross-Border implications and connections, it is important that any bodies established have the full support and co-operation of the Irish Government and its agencies, including if necessary through the drafting of legislation.

There are some areas where further clarification or perhaps changes to the Haass proposals should be considered by the parties. For example, there should be explicit guarantees of sufficient resources to such a process. The importance of guaranteeing sufficient resources is starkly highlighted by the caveat in the Haass draft agreement that the HIU would conduct reviews and investigations into cases involving serious injuries only "if resources permit". There must be an effective procedure to guarantee that all relevant intelligence, including from the UK Ministry of Defence, the security services, and other government departments, is made available to the HIU. There is some uncertainty about this as the draft stands.

Amnesty International considers the proposals in the draft agreement for a separate truth or information recovery process, the ICIR, provide a good basis on which to pursue further discussions. However, we believe the powers and remit of the ICIR as conceived in the agreement need to be strengthened in a number of areas. For instance, powers of compulsion are entirely absent from the proposals for the ICIR. This means it would be left to operate on the basis of purely voluntary co-operation of persons willing to give testimony. This is particularly important with respect to the role of the ICIR in the examination of patterns and policies, where its lack of powers to compel witnesses or the production of documents would significantly undermine its ability to come to informed conclusions. With regard to exposing a wider narrative of what happened and wider analysis we may be left short yet again.

The key point is that at present these draft proposals remain just that, draft proposals. It is important we do not let another opportunity slip by where sensible proposals which have achieved a measure of cross-party support and which could be developed, brought into existence and have the capacity to deliver for victims and their families, come to nothing because of a lack of sufficient political will to bring them over the line. We are deeply concerned the Haass proposals on the past may be held hostage to the lack of agreement on flags and parades, or fall victim to the recent row about the UK Government’s scheme for so-called "on the runs".

The Downey case is a stark example of how the on-the-runs scheme has the potential to perpetuate impunity. We are concerned that there may be other cases where similar errors have been made and where the prosecution of members of armed groups suspected of committing abuses may fail for the same or similar reasons. The announcement by the UK Prime Minister of a judge-led inquiry to examine the scheme is a positive development. It must be made clear that the assurances contained in the letters received by those on the run cannot be a bar to further investigation or the possibility of bringing fresh prosecutions.

These recent revelations show precisely why a new comprehensive approach to dealing with the past – rather than the fragmented, piecemeal approach adopted to date – is needed in order for victims of human rights abuses and violations across the board to secure truth and justice. We urge the Northern Ireland political parties and the UK and Irish Governments to play their part in taking forward the proposals. As the draft agreement emphasises, the time to rise to the challenge of the past is now, as “Northern Ireland does not have the luxury of putting off this difficult, but potentially transformative, task any longer.” Amnesty International asks this committee to support our calls. We urge the committee to encourage the Irish Government to work towards the establishment of a comprehensive mechanism to address the past in Northern Ireland and, if it is established, to provide full co-operation with its work and investigations.