Mr. William Devas:

I will make two points in responding to Deputy Brendan Smith's question about informal truth recovery. Truth recovery has often resulted from prosecution and traditional justice, in other words, where a person has served a term of imprisonment. The implication is that the person has been involved in paramilitary activity because, as we heard, very few, if any, state forces have served time for what occurred in the conflict. Therefore, there may not necessarily be legal issues. One may have someone who has suffered as a result of the activity of a person or a group and wants to have more information rather than simply seeing that a person was guilty. In such cases, one facilitates conversations between the person and the persons involved or another individual acting as a proxy. This can contribute to healing and reconciliation, although it is by no means for everybody and should be done voluntarily. It has proved very helpful for some people in their personal journey of healing and reconciliation.

The Deputy raises a very important question and sensible point regarding cases where some people believe the person with whom one is dealing should have been prosecuted or where a case may still be taken. As the CEO of an organisation that fundamentally believes this process is absolutely vital for humanity and reconciliation when both parties wish to avail of it, I am also aware there are real legal difficulties. Could one legislate for limited immunity for informal processes as well as formal processes? I do not know the answer to that question but it is a very good one that needs to be considered very carefully.