Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Ó Caoláin for putting down this important Topical Issue matter. I am taking this on behalf of the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, who cannot be with us. In 1971, the deep concern of the Irish Government and the Irish people led to Ireland bringing a case against the UK before the European Commission and Court of Human Rights alleging human rights violations arising from internment. A particular focus of the proceedings was the use of the so-called "five techniques", as outlined by the Deputy, of interrogation suffered by 14 detainees, who became known as the hooded men. My thoughts tonight are with the men who suffered this treatment, and who have had to deal with the long-lasting effects, as well as all those who suffered during the period of internment.

While the Commission held that torture had occurred, in 1978 the court held that the treatment of the men amounted to "inhuman and degrading treatment" but not torture. The UK Government did not dispute this finding. The Irish Government has always considered that these men were subject to torture and jurisprudence since 1978 would suggest that the treatment endured by the men would be recognised internationally today as such.

In the interests of justice and international human rights, in 2014 the Government decided to request the European Court of Human Rights to revise its judgment. On the basis of the new material uncovered, it was contended that the ill-treatment suffered by the hooded men should be recognised as torture. The court's judgment was delivered on 20 March of this year. As Deputies are well aware, the court refused the Government's application to revise the 1978 judgment and find that the men had suffered torture. The refusal was made on two grounds: first, the court did not believe the new documents contained a sufficient prima faciecase that one of the witnesses had misled the Commission and the court about the long-term effects of the "five techniques" of interrogation; and, second, the court did not accept that, even if the witness had given misleading evidence, it might have had a decisive influence on the court's finding in the original judgment.

My colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, met the men recently to hear their experiences, and I know that he was deeply moved by what they told him on that day. The men have understandably been disappointed by the judgment as have many of their supporters. A further referral of the case to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights is possible. However, there is no automatic right for referral and any application to have the application heard by the Grand Chamber would be considered by a panel of five judges.

I understand that many in Ireland, and beyond, would like to see this application for referral proceed. I want to stress that the Government is taking the time available to consider the ruling carefully and will not take this decision lightly. The Government's intensive focus since the judgment of the court on 20 March has been on legal considerations and to give this case the due weight and attention it deserves, including by seeking the advice of the Attorney General. We will consider this advice before any Cabinet decision on whether to move ahead with the application. When the Government has made a decision on whether to apply for a referral to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, that decision will be communicated to the men and their representatives and it will also be made public.

See this speech in context