Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I want to begin by welcoming Liam Shannon, who is in the Gallery. Where do I start after what we have heard this evening? It is fundamentally depressing to think that August 1971 is nearly 50 years ago, and still we wait for justice for these men and their families.

I was not able to attend the presentation in the audiovisual room some weeks ago because along with my colleague, Senator O'Reilly, I was in the Council of Europe. It struck me that the European Convention on Human Rights was delivered by the Council of Europe. It also struck me on my first visit to the Council of Europe that we have a very good team of people there working on a human rights agenda on behalf of this country. In what was almost the first conversation, and Senator O'Reilly will confirm this, people were highlighting in particular our judge, Síofra O'Leary, and the fantastic work she is doing. It is no coincidence that she was the judge who held the minority opinion in this case.

I want to elaborate on what Senator Feighan said in his very fine contribution about the way Judge O'Leary emphasised the gravity of the issue before the courts. She noted that an interstate application is "not the exercise of a right of action to enforce the applicant state's rights but [and she stresses this] an action against an alleged violation of the public order of Europe".

The value of legal certainty therefore should be balanced against this public interest. The public interest in this case is particularly salient in light of the fact that the original judgment was utilised by, amongst others, the United States to legitimise and defend what it termed enhanced interrogation techniques during the so-called war on terror.

Criticising the judgment, and this is significant, she stated the majority focuses almost exclusively on the "two illustrative cases" to the exclusion of all other detainees who were subjected to the five techniques. The reason "two illustrative cases" were "heard" by the commission was for reasons of "procedural economy", that is, it would be too burdensome for the commission to hear from all the detainees. However, the commission and the court had received written evidence pertaining to 14 of these cases. Instead, the majority judgment focuses only on the "two illustrative cases".

There we have it. The judgment is fundamentally flawed, and an Irish judge on that court called that out clearly. When it is that clear, we have to insist that the Government pursue this appeal. If it is somewhat problematic, that is fine. Let it be somewhat problematic but they must pursue the appeal because to do anything less does not just let down these men and their families or ourselves as a nation; it lets down the world.