Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

One has to recognise that these men were detained in the absence of any due process, judicial process or a proper charging system. It is very important to recognise that. Torture is not acceptable in any way, but it is important to say that what happened in this case is aggravated by the fact that no proper processes were observed. There were no procedures adhered to and the men were not afforded the opportunity to defend themselves. That makes what happened all the more reprehensible.

The men involved were detained in 1971. There are 14 people involved in this and I welcome those present in the Public Gallery. It is worth repeating what these men were subjected to and what they went through. The first form of torture was wall standing. They were spread-eagled against a wall in a strained position for periods totalling between 23 and 29 hours. That speaks for itself. Dark bags were placed over the heads of these men, pending interrogation, and they were held in a room where there was a continuous loud hissing noise. In advance of interrogation, they were deprived of sleep for unknown periods. They were also deprived of food and drink. Furthermore, there were the episodes involving helicopters and the horrendous fear that was instilled in the men as a result.

In 1978, the ECHR found that the use of these techniques on the men by the British authorities amounted to inhumane and degrading treatment but did not constitute torture. The court entered the realm of semantics at that stage. It effectively was torture. I do not know how the distinctions were drawn given the evidence available. The full judgment in that case was that the ECHR did not accept the designation of torture. In contrast, the European Commission on Human Rights, a body which once existed to take evidence, issue reports and decide whether cases could go to the ECHR, had classified the treatment of these men as torture and inhumane. That is a point worth noting.

In December 2014, Ireland requested that the ECHR judgment from 1978 be revised, as is provided for under Rule 80 of the court. Subsection 1 of the rule states, "A party may, in the event of the discovery of a fact which might, by its nature, have a decisive influence and which, when a judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court and could not reasonably have been known to that party, request the Court, within a period of six months after that party acquired knowledge of the fact, to revise that judgment." The new knowledge arose from the "RTÉ Investigates" programme. We should salute RTÉ and those involved in the programme, and in the documentary relating to this case, for that. New facts, documentation and information emerged which suggested ministerial involvement. On that basis, the Government sought a revision. We are all addressing this issue in a unified and sincere fashion, so I believe Senator Conway-Walsh probably should have placed more emphasis on the bone fides of the Government, particularly in view of the fact that it made the application and then fought the case.There has not been an issue with that, nor should there have been. That merits recognition. It should not have been otherwise.

The basis of Ireland's case arose from the documentary to which I refer. In its 2014 application, the Government stated that, as a result of the documentary, it had obtained a large amount of documents which demonstrated that the then UK Government had withheld information from the original proceedings and questioned the alleged psychiatric expert known as Doctor L. That man testified that the after-effects had not been long-term in nature, which was very wrong.

The request is that the matter go before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. At this point, I have no philosophical objection to that. I doubt that any Member of the Oireachtas would have such an objection or would look at this matter with anything but horror. What happened was wrong and the fact that people were detained and tortured in the fashion described is not acceptable. The Attorney General had to weigh up the facts. I have to put it on the record that up to now such an application has never been granted. That is a very difficult thing.