Mr. Daniel Holder:

Ever since the command paper, the way the UK has gone about developing its proposals, which it argues are not its final proposals, has been entirely in secret. No one has had sight, outside of UK Government departments, of what changes, if any, will be made to the system. There certainly does not seem to be any departure from the framework set out in the command paper

I mentioned the Council of Europe but I will elaborate a little more on UN mechanisms. What is in the command paper on legacy is awful for the North, as it is for victims of the conflict and others. There is also the risk of recurrence. The whole point of proper transitional justice processes and accountability for what happened in the past is truth and justice but also that third limb of accountability to prevent patterns of human rights violations recurring. If the UK proceeds with this legacy Bill, one of the problems is the impact will be felt way beyond these islands. We have already heard, in one of the seminars organised by Ulster University, the former UN special rapporteur, Pablo de Greiff, saying something along the lines that every third-rate dictatorship would be pretty much licking its lips at the precedent that would be set by this legacy Bill. There is a serious risk, given the UK is a permanent member of the Security Council, that the UK's proposals will end up being replicated in other parts of the world and justified. The UK puts itself forward as a leading democracy. There will be other countries that will seek to emulate what is in the command paper, in addition to the amnesty proposals, so it is extremely risky.

It is a subject that could be picked up by the United Nations Human Rights Council. The UK is up for the universal periodic review process in October of this year. We will be making submissions to that next month. Other member states, including those the State could engage with, will be on that human rights committee. It is another forum where the UK could be held to account. There are other forums, such as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, that could be brought to bear regarding these proposals. There are international mechanisms out there.

On the transitional issues, given the UK does not have a written constitution and has parliamentary sovereignty and so on, it is always more difficult to see the extent to which courts would order a stay on the commencement of parts of the legacy Bill when it is found not to be convention-compatible. One of the alarming parts about the command paper is it has an almost instant cut-off of all existing mechanisms. Even if call-in mechanism operations, such as the work of Jon Boutcher on Operation Kenova, the work of the inquest system and the work of the Police Ombudsman, were at a very late stage of almost producing reports or pronouncing judgments they would, unfortunately, just be guillotined almost instantly, if the legislation was brought in in the manner envisaged by the command paper.