Legal Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ on its compliance with Article 2 ECHR (Date: 07 May 2021)
SUMMARY
1. Alternative or restorative justice models such as the model proposed by TRP may comply with Article 2 of the ECHR where they provide an effective investigation into deaths. Article 2 does not require any particular outcome, such as a prosecution / conviction, but rather establishes a minimum standard of investigation which the State must provide into deaths caused by State actors, deaths in suspicious circumstances, or deaths which occurred during a conflict.
2. TRP’s proposed model appears to comply with many of the indicia for an ‘effective investigation’ as discussed in the caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’), although this will very much depend on the detail of how the model is implemented and on the funding allocated.
3. Although the ECtHR has ruled out blanket amnesties in several cases, it has never considered a conditional amnesty such as that proposed by TRP.
4. The primary question is whether Article 2 requires the availability of ‘punishment’. From an examination of the caselaw, it appears that the purpose behind requiring punishment is: 1) to end impunity, 2) to provide publicity and 3) to achieve deterrence. Arguably all three factors are met under the restorative justice model.
5. For those reasons, it appears that TRP’s model – in theory – complies with Article 2.
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 2 of 32
Table of Contents
Background ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Stormont House Agreement ................................................................................................................. 4
Historical Investigations Unit ............................................................................................................. 5
Independent Commission on Information Retrieval ........................................................................... 5
Move away from the SHA and the new ‘Fast- Track’ Approach ..................................................... 6
TRP’s Proposal...................................................................................................................................... 7
Truth Recovery Unit ............................................................................................................................ 8
Justice Facilitation Unit ..................................................................................................................... 8
Confidentiality / Anonymity .............................................................................................................. 10
Conditional Amnesty ......................................................................................................................... 11
Differences between the Stormont House Agreement and the TRP’s proposals .......................... 11
Legacy Prosecutions under the Status Quo ...................................................................................... 12
Sentencing ............................................................................................................................................ 13
Article 2 ECHR ................................................................................................................................... 13
The Duty to carry out an ‘Effective Official Investigation’ ............................................................ 14
Independence and Impartiality ......................................................................................................... 17
Thorough and Adequate .................................................................................................................... 17
Participation of Victims / Family Members ...................................................................................... 18
Public Scrutiny and Punishment ....................................................................................................... 18
Applicability to deaths in State custody ............................................................................................ 19
ECHR and Amnesties ......................................................................................................................... 19
Applicability of Article 2 to Post-Conflict Societies ......................................................................... 21
Restorative Justice and the Victim’s Directive ................................................................................. 22
Rights when a decision is made to prosecute .................................................................................... 24
Rights when a decision is made not to prosecute .............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Restorative Justice ............................................................................................................................ 24
International Human Rights Law and the ‘Right to Know’ ........................................................... 25
Application of Article 2 ECHR to TRP’s Proposals ........................................................................ 27
Adequacy of Investigations ............................................................................................................... 29
Does Article 2 require ‘Punishment’? .............................................................................................. 29
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 31
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 3 of 32
OPINION
1. Truth Recovery Process (‘TRP’) seeks the opinion of counsel as to whether the proposed ‘Truth Recovery and Reconciliation Process’ model is in compliance with Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Background
2. TRP are a group representing former combatants, community activists, academics, victims and survivors of the conflict in Northern Ireland. TRP support the implementation of a ‘Truth Recovery and Reconciliation Process’ as an alternative model for investigating and addressing unlawful killings committed during the Troubles.
3. TRP estimate that the armed conflict in Northern Ireland affected ‘almost every family in the region’, leading to more than 3,500 deaths between 1969 and 2001, as well as many thousands of people suffering injuries. TRP note that the ‘immense human suffering’ caused does not remain within the geographical borders of Northern Ireland, but is shared by many families across the island of Ireland, the United Kingdom and further abroad.
4. Despite the long passage of time since the Good Friday Agreement, there is no specialised overarching mechanism - such as a ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Northern Ireland’ - to investigate killings that occurred during the Troubles.
5. In 2014, the Stormont House Agreement proposed a mechanism to ‘deal with the past’, facilitating legacy investigations and allowing family members to directly seek information on their loved one’s death. The Agreement has not yet been implemented.
6. In January 2020, the UK Government committed to introducing legislation to implement the Stormont House Agreement within 100 days. By March 2020, however, a new proposal was introduced which appeared to shift the focus away from implementing the Stormont House Agreement towards a new ‘fast track’ model.
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 4 of 32
7. TRP’s proposal is intended as a ‘logical and necessary extension’ of the Good Friday Agreement (1998), providing an alternative – non-judicial – post-conflict reconciliation process for Northern Ireland.
Stormont House Agreement
8. As TRP’s proposal builds upon the structures and mechanisms proposed in the Stormont House Agreement, it is worth examining it in detail before proceeding to TRP’s model.
9. The Stormont House Agreement was published on 23 December 2014 following intensive discussion between the Northern Irish Executive and the British and Irish governments. Among other objectives, the Agreement set out a proposed structure for truth and reconciliation processes in Northern Ireland.
10. Section 21, entitled ‘The Past’, provides:
“As part of the transition to long-term peace and stability the participants agree that an approach to dealing with the past is necessary which respects the following principles:
• promoting reconciliation;
• upholding the rule of law;
• acknowledging and addressing the suffering of victims and survivors;
• facilitating the pursuit of justice and information recovery;
• is human rights compliant; and
• is balanced, proportionate, transparent, fair and equitable.”
11. In furtherance of this goal, it was agreed that the Executive would establish an ‘Oral History Archive’ by 2016 and implement a comprehensive Mental Trauma Service, accessible through the NHS and supported by the Victims and Survivors Service.
12. Legacy investigations would be facilitated by two new organisations: the Historical Investigations Unit (‘HIU’) and the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 5 of 32
(‘ICIR’). These would be overseen by an Implementation and Reconciliation Group (‘IRG’) and would be time limited, with work to be completed within five years of the group’s establishment.
Historical Investigations Unit
13. The HIU was intended to carry out investigations into ‘outstanding Troubles-related deaths’, taking over work from the Historical Enquiries Team and the Police Ombudsman from Northern Ireland. The HIU was intended as independent and victim centred.
14. Once an investigation was complete, the DPP would decide whether or not to prosecute. Legacy inquests would continue alongside the process.
Independent Commission on Information Retrieval
15. The ICIR was intended as an independent cross-border organisation, ‘entirely separate’ from the justice system.
16. Section 41 sets out the objectives of the ICIR:
“The objective of the ICIR will be to enable victims and survivors to seek and privately receive information about the (Troubles-related) deaths of their next of kin.”
17. The organisation was intended to build upon the work of the Independent Commission on the Location of Victims’ Remains, established in 1999 to locate the remains of 16 people – ‘The Disappeared’ – presumed to have been murdered during the Troubles.
18. Information gathered by the ICIR – including identities of people providing information – would not be disclosed to law enforcement, or intelligence agencies, and would be inadmissible in criminal and civil investigations.
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 6 of 32
19. The Stormont House Agreement did not envisage the granting of an amnesty / immunity against prosecution in respect of any offences under investigation.
20. Section 49 provides:
“No individual who provides information to the body will be immune from prosecution for any crime committed should the required evidential test be satisfied by other means.”
21. The Stormont House Agreement has not been implemented to date.
Move away from the Stormont House Agreement and the new ‘Fast- Track’ Approach
22. In January 2020, the ‘New Decade, New Approach’ Agreement was published wherein the UK Government promised to publish and introduce legislation within 100 days to implement the Stormont House Agreement.
23. In March 2020, the UK Government announced a new ‘fast-track’ framework for legacy investigations, intended to “…help victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland towards reconciliation with the pain and trauma of the past and ending vexatious claims against veterans.”
24. A press release from 18th March 2020 states:
“A new independent body will conduct swift, final examinations of all the unresolved deaths. Only those cases where there is new compelling evidence and a realistic prospect of a prosecution will be investigated. Once cases have been considered there will be a legal bar on any future investigation occurring. This will end the cycle of reinvestigations for the families of victims and veterans alike.”1
25. This proposal has been met with some concern from groups such as the Committee on the Administration of Justice which describes it as an ‘abandonment’ of the Stormont
1 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-sets-out-way-forward-on-the-legacy-of-the-past-in-northern-ireland
Page 7 of 32
House Agreement process, as opposed to an implementation of the principles contained within it.
2
26. On 18th March 2020, the Department of Foreign Affairs issued a statement affirming its commitment to the Stormont House Agreement:
“The Stormont House Agreement framework is the way forward … Where the UK Government are proposing significant changes to that framework, these must be discussed and agreed by both Governments and the parties to the Northern Ireland Executive.”3
27. The Minister for Foreign Affairs noted:
“In terms of the issues the UK Government has raised today about the treatment of British military veterans, our position is again clear. There should be effective investigations into all Troubles-related deaths, regardless of the perpetrator. We would not support a proposal to introduce any special measure or treatment, regarding investigation of state or non-state actors in Northern Ireland.
“The rule of law and the protections afforded by the European Convention on Human Rights must apply equally to everyone and must be upheld, and this principle is at the core of the Stormont House framework.”
TRP’s Proposal
28. The ‘Truth Recovery and Reconciliation Process’ proposes establishing a Reconciliation Commission which will comprise of two bodies: 1) a Truth Recovery Unit and 2) A Justice Facilitation Unit.
29. The Reconciliation Commission would oversee the other two units.
2 https://caj.org.uk/2020/03/18/caj-response-to-new-approach-legacy/
3 https://www.dfa.ie/news-and-media/press-releases/press-release-archive/2020/march/statement-by-tanaiste-on-uk-government-legacy-announcement.php
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 8 of 32
Truth Recovery Unit
30. The Truth Recovery Unit would replace the HIU and would hold many of the same functions. It would be established as a fully independent body staffed by professional civilian investigators, rather than members of the PSNI or An Garda Síochána.
31. The key distinction, as articulated by the TRP, is that the Truth Recovery Unit’s role would be to “…verify information received by the Reconciliation Commission”, rather than “…assemble evidence for a prosecution.”
32. As the Unit would have to carry out cross-border and extraterritorial investigations, TRP envisage that the Unit would have to be given significant powers of investigation by the Irish and UK Governments.
33. In addition, the Unit would require the power to investigate the activities of police officers and members of the security forces.
Justice Facilitation Unit
34. The Justice Facilitation Unit (‘JFU’) would replace the ICIR, allowing for a ‘safe mediation process’ to take place between former combatants and victims / family members – creating a new model for restorative justice.
35. At least initially, the mediation process would apply to killings carried out during the ‘Troubles’ although there is potential for the model to be applied to other crimes, and other time periods, should it prove successful.
36. The mediation procedures will be largely determined by the parties but TRP envisage that it would typically proceed as follows:
• A former combatant approaches JFU with an offer of disclosure relating to a killing, providing a minimum level of detail (eg When, Where, Why, How, to Whom – if possible)
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 9 of 32
• The JFU contacts the Truth Recovery Unit, which appoints an Investigator in respect of the case and verifies the information provided. Penalties will apply for making a false statement.
• Once the information has been verified by the Investigator, the JFU appoints a Mediation Officer to approach victims / family members. The Mediation Officer informs the victims /family members about the nature of the information involved and ascertains whether they wish to engage with the process, and - if so – on what terms.
• The structure of the restorative justice process will be largely directed by the parties in consultation with the Mediation Officer. This might involve drawing up terms of engagement, protocols, timetables etc. through discussion with both sides.
• Supports should be available to both parties including counselling, transportation, accommodation and other expenses.
• In the interests of finality, the process would conclude within an agreed time period from the commencement of the initial offer of disclosure.
37. After the engagement process has concluded, TRP envisages that the parties would agree a ‘Joint Statement of Reconciliation’, setting out an agreed set of facts / account of the incident which can then be checked against contemporary sources by the Mediation Officer and TRU Investigator. The investigation process would require verification of the information provided by the former combatant from the beginning.
38. TRP anticipates that – should a particularly sensitive incident arise – this task of verifying the Joint Statement could be undertaken by a Judge, or panel of Judges where the information provided involves persons in multiple jurisdictions.
39. After the Joint Statement is verified, it would then be made public. Following this:
“…the parties would be encouraged to engage with the wider community, schools, conflict resolution groups, researchers, and other relevant audiences in order to promote greater understanding of the nature of the conflict; inspire others to participate; and counter the longstanding problem of the transgenerational transfer of conflict that bedevils societies such as Northern Ireland.”
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 10 of 32
40. If the parties do not complete the engagement process, or cannot reach agreement on a Joint Statement, the parties would each provide an individual Statement setting out their own understanding of what occurred. The Statement would be made available to the other party and subsequently would be placed in a secure archive which would not be released until after all participants in the process have died.
Confidentiality / Anonymity
41. The model as proposed requires that information which is disclosed to the Justice Facilitation Unit would remain confidential until the conclusion of the process.
42. The identity of the applicant will remain confidential throughout the initial stages of the process. TRP envisage that it might be necessary to allow for longer lasting anonymity, where disclosure of the applicant’s identity might lead to reprisals or might result in a risk to safety.
43. Additionally:
• Information disclosed would not be shared with any law enforcement agency or third party.
• Information disclosed – whether ‘intentionally or inadvertently’ – could not be used to investigate or prosecute any other individual or group.
• Information disclosed - ‘intentionally or inadvertently’ – would be incapable of grounding a civil claim for damages / reparations on behalf of any person.
• It would be an offence to share information disclosed by a former combatant without their consent.
44. TRP argue that confidentiality will encourage combatants to come forward without fear for their safety. They further highlight miscarriages of justice, where paramilitaries may have been convicted of crimes they did not commit because they could not reveal the true perpetrator.
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 11 of 32
Conditional Amnesty
45. The proposal envisions that perpetrators and former combatants who engage in the TRP process will be granted immunity from future criminal or civil prosecutions in respect of the information they disclose. This immunity, or amnesty, will be conditional on their full participation in the process and is revocable upon discovery of fraud / deceit etc. on the part of the former combatant.
46. TRP instruct that the conditional immunity will work as follows:
• Provided that the former combatant’s information is verified during the Investigation Process, an immunity will apply in respect of the information disclosed by them.
• The immunity will bar any future criminal prosecutions arising from the incident disclosed, as well as any civil claims grounded on the same incident (e.g. a claim under tort for damages).
• Victims or family members can withdraw from the process at any point.
• If the former combatant fails to engage with the process in good faith, they may face a penalty.
47. TRP envisage that applications could be made on behalf of an individual combatant or a group. Should immunity be provided, this would apply to both individuals and members of the group.
48. At the conclusion of the process, TRP envisages that victims / survivors / family members would be entitled to reparations, payable by the State.
Differences between the Stormont House Agreement and the TRP’s proposals
49. The key differences between the Stormont House Agreement (‘SHA’) and TRP’s proposal are as follows:
a. The SHA allows victims / family members only to initiate the process. Under the TRP, the process can be initiated by a former combatant or by a victim / family member.
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 12 of 32
b. The SHA does not allow for a restorative justice process between family members and former combatants.
c. The SHA does not provide immunity in respect of offences disclosed, whereas the TRP creates an immunity conditional upon good faith engagement with the process.
Legacy Prosecutions under the status quo
50. Very few legacy investigations have been completed in the last decade, and even fewer have resulted in convictions.
51. The Committee on the Administration of Justice provided the following figures in their report of April 2020.
“…since January 2012, 33 cases have been passed by investigators to the DPP for decisions on whether or not to prosecute.
The DPP has initiated legacy prosecutions in 17 cases, deciding not to prosecute in 16 cases.
Eight of the cases that went forward to prosecution were against alleged republican paramilitaries, 4 against alleged loyalists and 5 against British Army personnel (6 soldiers in total, one case involves two soldiers).
Nine cases are currently before the courts (2 suspected republicans, 2 suspected loyalists and 5 British Army personnel).
Since 2012, 4 prosecutions have resulted in convictions - 2 republicans and 2 loyalists.”4
52. There has never been a single conviction of a member of the security forces as a result of a legacy investigation.
53. At present, investigations are carried out primarily by the PSNI and the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman. The Historical Enquiries Team carried out investigations
4 Prosecutions, Imprisonment and the Stormont House Agreement: A Critical Analysis of Proposals on Dealing with the Past in Northern Ireland at p. 4
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 13 of 32
until 2004. Once an investigation has been completed, the Director of Public Prosecution decides on whether or not to proceed with a prosecution.
54. The Stormont House Agreement envisions that the investigatory work would be taken over by the Historical Investigations Unit, but that the procedure would operate in more or less the same way and that the DPP would continue to make the final decision as to whether or not to prosecute in any particular case.
55. In contrast, TRP’s proposals remove the DPP – and the potential of prosecution - from the process.
Sentencing
56. Following the Northern Ireland Sentences Act 1998, a person convicted of a conflict-related offence after 1973, who meets the criteria for eligibility for early release, will only serve a maximum of two years, regardless of the length of sentence imposed by the court.
Article 2 ECHR
57. Article 2 of the ECHR protects the right to life.
Article 2 - Right to Life
1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 14 of 32
58. The provision creates two substantive obligations for States: the duty to protect life, and the duty not to take life unlawfully. The duty to protect the right to life ‘by law’ involves:
…a primary duty on the State to secure the right to life by putting in place an appropriate legal and administrative framework to deter the commission of offences against the person, backed up by law enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and punishment of breaches of such provisions.5
59. Article 2 creates a further – procedural – obligation, requiring States to carry out an effective investigation into alleged breaches of the right to life.6 This is an aspect of the duty to protect the right to life ‘by law’. This duty to investigate arises only where there is a breach of one of the two substantive duties under Article 2, i.e. where death or life-threatening injury has occurred. There is no requirement for a particular form or model of investigation to take place, however the ECtHR has clarified that a certain minimum standard must be reached for the investigation to be considered ‘effective’.
60. Article 2 creates an obligation of means, not of result.7 The purpose of an investigation under Article 2 is not to secure any particular outcome – such as a prosecution – but to “…secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws safeguarding the right to life” and to ensure the accountability of State actors and bodies for deaths occurring under their responsibility.8
61. The obligations imposed by Article 2 are non-derogable, meaning that a State cannot limit or suspend it in a time of emergency, apart from deaths resulting from a lawful act of war.9 The ECHR – including Article 2 – continues to apply in the context of an armed conflict, albeit through the prism of international humanitarian law.
The Duty to carry out an ‘Effective Official Investigation’
62. In McCann and Others10, the ECtHR held:
5 Makaratzis v. Greece, Application no. 50385/99, 20 December 2004 at [57].
6 Edwards v. United Kingdom, Application no.46477/99, 14 March 2002 at [71].
7 Makaratzis v. Greece, Application no. 50385/99, 20 December 2004 at [74].
8 Anguelova v. Bulgaria, Application no. 38361/97, 13 June 2002.
9 ECHR, Art 15(2).
10 McCann v. United Kingdom, Application no. 18984/91, 27 September 1995.
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 15 of 32
“The obligation to protect the right to life under this provision, read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to ‘secure everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Convention’, required by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force by, inter alios, agents of the State.”
63. The duty to investigate applies to killings carried out by State forces and deaths in State custody, as well as cases where a person sustains life-threatening injuries in suspicious circumstances – even where the presumed perpetrator is not a State agent.11
64. It appears that the right may apply in cases of deaths involving State responsibility due to negligence. In such cases, the State must provide an effective independent judicial system, where facts can be established, perpetrators held liable and appropriate redress provided to victims.12
65. An ‘effective official investigation’ must fulfil several criteria. It should:
a. be carried out with promptness and reasonable expedition;13
b. be sufficiently independent and impartial – “both at law and in practice”;14
c. involve a “thorough, impartial and careful examination of the circumstances surrounding the killing” – in other words, the investigation has to be adequate;15
d. Allow victims / family members of victims to access the materials and conclusions of the investigation;
e. Allow for public scrutiny and provide punishments that would deter others;16
11 Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey, application no. 10987/10, 25 June 2013
12 Sinim v. Turkey, application no. 9441/10, 6 June 2017; Ciechońska v. Poland, application no. 19776/04, 14 June 2011.
13 Jordan v. UK (2001) 37 EHRR 52.
14 Nachova v. Bulgaria, application no 43577/98 and 43579/98, 26 February 2004.
15 McCann and Others v. United Kingdom (1995) 21 EHRR 97 at [163].
16 McKerr v. UK, Application no. 28883/95, 4 May 2001; Oneryildiz v Turkey, Application No. 48939/99, 30 November 2004.
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 16 of 32
f. the investigation must also be capable of leading to a determination of whether the death was caused unlawfully, and – if so – to the identification and punishment of those responsible.17
66. These factors are important indicia of the compliance of an investigation with Article 2; however, not all of these factors must be present for an investigation to be considered ‘effective’. Even a flawed investigation may comply with article 2.18
67. The object and purpose of the ECHR – an instrument for the protection of individual human beings – requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied in a way which makes its safeguards practical and effective.19 Article 2 must not be interpreted in a way which imposes an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities, in respect of policing or resources. What amounts to an impossible and/or disproportionate burden will depend on the “very particular facts and contexts” of an individual case.20 Inactivity on the part of State authorities for long periods of time, however, cannot be justified – even where objective difficulties exist arising from conflict or a post-conflict situation.21 The State is under similar obligations to investigate in the context of forced disappearance, torture and other kinds of inhumane and degrading treatment.
68. Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of death or the identity of the persons responsible will risk breaching Article 2.22 The nature and degree of scrutiny which satisfy the minimum threshold of the investigation’s effectiveness depends on the circumstances of the particular case. Each case will be assessed on the basis of all relevant facts and with regard to the practical realities of the investigative work.23
17 Varnava and Others v. Turkey, Application nos. 16064/90 and others, judgment of 18 September 2009 at [191]; Palić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Application no. 4704/04, 15 February 2011.
18 McCann and Others v. United Kingdom (1995) 21 EHRR 97
19 McCann and Others v. United Kingdom (1995) 21 EHRR 97; Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, Applications no. 57942/00 and 57945/00, 24 February 2005 at [131]
20 Palić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Application no. 4704/04, 15 February 2011 at [70]; Brecknell v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 32457/04, 27 November 2007 at [62].
21 Jelić v. Croatia, Application no. 57856/11, 12 June 2014 at [92].
22 Mikheyev v. Russia, Application no. 77617/01, 26 January 2006, at[107] et seq.; Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, Application No. 24760/94, 28 October 1998 at [102]
23 Velcea and Mazăre v. Romania, Application no. 64301/01, 1 December 2009,
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 17 of 32
Promptness and Reasonable Expedition
69. An effective investigation is one that is carried out within a reasonably prompt period of time. The obligation to investigate applies primarily throughout the period during which the authorities could reasonably be expected to discover the perpetrator. Where a great passage of time has passed since the unlawful killing, it does not appear that the State will be subject to the same obligation to investigate.24
70. Where information which casts new light on the circumstances of a killing arises at a later stage, however, the obligation to investigate may be revived. The State may be obliged to take further investigative measures in the event that fresh evidence emerges.25 The renewed obligation to investigate will depend on the circumstances of the case and might be restricted to verifying the credibility of the source, or of the purported new evidence.26
71. The Court has recognised the ongoing public interest in prosecuting and convicting perpetrators of unlawful killings, particularly in relation to war crimes and crimes against humanity.27 However the authorities are entitled to take into account the prospects of success of any prosecution in allocating resources to the renewed investigation.28
Independence and Impartiality
72. The investigation must be carried out by persons who are independent from those implicated in the events, meaning that there should be a lack of hierarchical and institutional connection as well as practical independence.
Thorough and Adequate
73. An investigation will be ‘thorough’ where:
24 Šilih v. Slovenia, Application No. 71463/01, 9 April 2009 at [157].
25 Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 32457/04, 27 November 2007 at [71].
26 Cerf v. Turkey, Application No. 12938/07, at [65].
27 Jelić v. Croatia, Application No. 57856/11, 12 June 2014 at [52].
28 Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 32457/04, 27 November 2007 at [71].
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 18 of 32
a. the authorities take whatever reasonable steps they can to secure the evidence concerning the incident – such as eye-witness testimony, forensic evidence, autopsies;
b. the authorities make a genuine attempt to find out what happened and do not rely on hasty or ill-founded conclusions to close their investigation or as the basis of their decisions;
c. the investigation was capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and to the identification and, possibly, the punishment of those responsible;
d. the investigation’s conclusions are based on objective and impartial analysis of all relevant elements – failure to follow an obvious line of inquiry may indicate that the investigation was not thorough.
74. Failure to gather all relevant information may breach Article 2, particularly when the information is within the power or procurement of the State. In Makaratzis v. Greece, a failure on the part of the respondent State to gather a list of all policemen involved in a shooting, or to gather all bullets at the scene of the shooting, was a violation of Article 2.
Participation of Victims / Family Members
75. The investigation should involve members of the victim’s family as far as possible.29 It must be commenced by the State, however, and will not satisfy Article 2 if family members or survivors are required to carry out their own investigation.
Public Scrutiny and Punishment
76. The requirement to carry out an investigation is “…not an obligation of results but of means”. Provided that a thorough investigation is carried out into the death, the obligation may be satisfied in the absence of a conviction. The investigation, including any subsequent trial, must be open to public scrutiny. In successive cases, the ECtHR has held that an ‘effective’ investigation is one that produces information which is capable of leading to the ‘identification and punishment of those responsible’.30 This obligation might be satisfied through civil proceedings, such as an administrative or
29 R (Amin) v. S.O.S. Home Dept [2003] 4 All ER 1264.
30 McKerr v. UK, Application no. 28883/95, 4 May 2001 at [171].
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 19 of 32
regulatory investigation which leads to findings of fact as to the identity of a perpetrator.
31
77. The ECtHR has held that:
“…national courts should not under any circumstances be prepared to allow life-endangering offences and grave attacks on physical and moral integrity to go unpunished.”32
78. However, there is no right to obtain a particular outcome - such as a prosecution or conviction – or to obtain a particular sentence. Rather, the Court highlights the need to deter future perpetrators – through punishment or publicity – as well as the importance of compensating victims and family members.
Applicability to deaths in State custody
79. Where a person dies in custody, or in the care of the State, the obligation to investigate may be even higher, and the payment of financial damages alone will not satisfy the State’s obligations.
“Where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons within their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during such detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation.”33
80. Successive ECtHR judgments have clarified that this higher bar applies because – in such cases – the knowledge is peculiarly within the grasp of the State.
ECHR and Amnesties
81. In Ali and Ayşe Duran v. Turkey34, a young man died in police custody, as a result of beatings by four police officers. Although the police officers were duly convicted, the
31 Powell v. UK (2000) 30 EHRR CD 152, [2000] ECHR 703
32 Ali and Ayse Duran v. Turkey, Application No. 42942/02, 8 April 2008 at [61].
33 Salman v. Turkey, Application No. 21986/93, 27 June 2000 at [100].
34 Ali and Ayse Duran v. Turkey, Application No. 42942/02, 8 April 2008.
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 20 of 32
operation of their sentences was suspended. The Court considered that the suspension of the prison sentences was comparable to a “partial amnesty … since, consequently, the convicted officers enjoyed virtual impunity despite their conviction.”
35 As a result, the suspension was not permissible.
82. In Margus v. Croatia,36 the Court considered the application of the General Amnesty Act 1996, which applied a general amnesty in respect of all criminal offences committed in connection with the war in Croatia between 17 August 1990 and 23 August 1996, save in respect of those acts which amounted to the gravest breaches of humanitarian law or to war crimes, including the crime of genocide. The applicant had been indicted on charges of war crimes against the general population and sought to rely on the General Amnesty to prevent his prosecution. The Grand Chamber held that a blanket amnesty granting amnesty in respect of the killing or ill-treatment of civilians would:
“…run contrary to the State’s obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention since it would hamper the investigation of such acts and necessarily lead to impunity for those responsible.”37
83. The Court noted the ‘growing tendency’ in international law to view amnesties for grave breaches of fundamental human rights as ‘unacceptable’ for the reasons that they are “…incompatible with the unanimously recognised obligation of States to prosecute and punish grave breaches of fundamental human rights.”38 The Court quoted the United Nations Human Rights Committee General Comment on Article 7 of the International Covenant, in relation to the granting of amnesties by some States in respect of acts of torture, which held:
“…amnesties are generally incompatible with the duty of States to investigate such acts; to guarantee freedom from such acts within their jurisdiction; and to ensure that they do not occur in the future. States may not deprive individuals of the right to an effective remedy, including compensation and such full rehabilitation as may be possible. 39
35Ali and Ayse Duran v. Turkey, Application No. 42942/02, 8 April 2008 at [69].
36 Margus v. Croatia, Application no. 4455/10, 27 May 2014.
37 Margus v. Croatia, Application no. 4455/10, 27 May 2014 at [127]
38 Margus v. Croatia, Application no. 4455/10, 27 May 2014 at [139]
39 General Comment No. 20, Article 7 (Forty-fourth session, 1992)
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 21 of 32
84. Notably – however – the Court accepted that amnesties might be possible where there were some particular circumstances, “such as a reconciliation process and/or a form of compensation to the victims”. No such circumstances were present on the facts.
85. In Ould Dah v. France40, the Court considered that that an amnesty was generally incompatible with the duty incumbent on States to investigate acts such as torture. Accordingly, the obligation to prosecute criminals would be undermined by granting impunity to the perpetrator through an amnesty procedure which – arguably – could be considered contrary to international law.
86. Where a State agent has been charged with crimes involving torture or ill-treatment, the ECtHR has held that it is ‘of the utmost importance’ that criminal proceedings and sentencing are not time-barred and that the granting of an amnesty or pardon should not be permissible.41
Applicability of Article 2 to post-conflict societies
87. The ECtHR has confirmed the applicability of Article 2 to post-conflict situations, including in countries of the former Yugoslavia,42 and has held that the procedural obligation under Article 2 continues to apply in “difficult security conditions, including in a context of armed conflict.”43
88. In Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom44, the Court held:
“…where the death (and disappearances) to be investigated under Article 2 occur in circumstances of generalised violence, armed conflict or insurgency, obstacles may be placed in the way of investigators and concrete constraints may compel the
42. United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 20, Article 7 (Forty-fourth session, 1992).
40 Ould Dah v. France, Application no. 13113/03, 17 March 2009.
41 Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, Application no. 32446/96, 2 November 2004; Okkalı v. Turkey, Application no. 52067/99, 17 October 2006; Yeşil and Sevim v. Turkey, Application no. 34738/04, 5 June 2007.
42 Al-Skeini and Ors v. United Kingdom, Application no, 55721/07, 7 July 2011.; Jularić v. Croatia, Application no. 20106/06, 20 January 2011.
43 Al-Skeini and Ors v. United Kingdom, Application no, 55721/07, 7 July 2011.
44 Al-Skeini and Ors v. United Kingdom, Application no, 55721/07, 7 July 2011.
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 22 of 32
use of less effective measures of investigation or may cause an investigation to be delayed.”
45
89. Nevertheless, the Court held that:
“…the obligation under Article 2 to safeguard life entails that, even in difficult security conditions, all reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that an effective, independent investigation is conducted into alleged breaches of the right to life.”46
90. The obligation to investigate applies even during a time of conflict, as:
“neither the prevalence of violent armed clashes nor the high incidence of fatalities can displace the obligation under Article 2 to ensure that an effective, independent investigation is conducted.”47
91. Family members have a ‘right to know’ the fate of their loved ones and the location of their remains.48 This is part of the State’s duty to protect and guarantee human rights.49 Customary humanitarian law further requires States to provide information to family members about their loved ones’ deaths and burial sites, and to provide access to their graves.50 These rights are universal and apply in the course of a conflict, as well as to post-conflict societies. Family members who are prevented from knowing the truth about their deceased loved ones, including the location of their bodies, experience an ongoing violation of Article 8 rights to respect for private and family life.51
Restorative Justice and the Victim’s Directive
92. As the ECtHR has not examined the applicability of Article 2 to restorative justice schemes such as TRP’s proposals, other international instruments can be taken into account. The Court has previously held that the ECHR and protocols “…cannot be
45 Al-Skeini and Ors v. United Kingdom, Application no, 55721/07, 7 July 2011; Bazorkina v. Russia, Application no. 69481/01, 27 July 2006, at [121].
46 Al-Skeini and Ors v. United Kingdom, Application no, 55721/07, 7 July 2011 at [164].
47 Kaya v. Turkey (1998) 28 EHRR 1 at [91].
48 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and related to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts (hereinafter ‘Protocol I’) (8 June 1977) 1125 UNTS 3.
49 Study on the right to the truth - Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (E/CN.4/2006/91) at [45].
50 While international humanitarian law generally does not apply unless there is an armed conflict, Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions appear to reflect a rule of customary law which is binding on States and State institutions regardless of whether an armed conflict is ongoing.
51 Ibid at [122]-[123].
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 23 of 32
interpreted in a vacuum but must be interpreted in harmony with the general principles of international law of which they form part.”
52Account can be taken of developments in international law, as well as “any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties”53 and in particular the rules concerning the international protection of human rights.54
93. The Victims Directive (2012/29/EU)55 attempts to establish an EU wide minimum standard of rights protection for victims of crime. The Directive has been transposed into Irish and UK law and was implemented in Northern Ireland by means of the Victim Charter (Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015) Order 2015.56 The UK left the EU on the 31st January 2020. EU law continued to apply during the transition period until 31st December 2020. After that period the Protocol on Ireland / Northern Ireland became applicable, which aims – among other things – to uphold the Good Friday Agreement.57
94. Under Article 2 of the Victims’ Rights Directive (2012/29/EU) “victim” means “a natural person who has suffered harm, including physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss, which was directly caused by an offence;” and also constitutes “family members of a person whose death was directly caused by a criminal offence and who have suffered harm as a result of that person’s death”. Family members are defined under the Directive as “the spouse, the person who is living with the victim in a committed intimate relationship, in a joint household and on a stable and continuous basis, the relatives in direct line, the siblings and the dependants of the victim”. In essence, victims are defined in terms of the effect that the offence has had on them or on a family member. Victims benefit from the Convention regardless of whether a formal complaint has been made or whether a suspect has been identified.
52 Margus v. Croatia, Application no. 4455/10, 27 May 2010 at [129].
53 Article 31(3)(c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,
54 Margus v. Croatia, Application no. 4455/10, 27 May 2010 at [129].
55 Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA
56 The Directive was transposed in Ireland by means of the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017 and in the UK by way of various codes of practice, detailed at this link.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmrc-eu-directives-eu-victims-directive-201229eu/hmrc-responsibilities-for-standards-on-the-rights-support-and-protections-of-victims-of-crime-eu-victims-directive-201229eu
57 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_20_104
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 24 of 32
95. The Directive provides victims with procedural rights to appropriate information, support and protection during investigations and criminal proceedings and victims may be able to participate in criminal proceedings.
Rights when a decision is made in respect of prosecution
96. The Directive requires clear, adequate and timely information to be provided to victims of crime and their family members, in a format that the victim can understand, to ensure that victims are kept fully abreast of the developments in a prosecution.
97. Article 6(1)(a) confirms the right of victims to request information on “…any decision … not to prosecute the offender”. The Directive is drafted with a two-stage process in mind. First, the victim should be given “…a brief summary of reasons for the decision concerned”, in order to allow them to decide whether to seek a review of that decision. The question of what “…a brief summary” means is addressed in Article 11(3), which states that victims should “…receive sufficient information to decide whether to request a review of any decision not to prosecute”.
Restorative Justice
98. The Directive attempts to provide a framework for restorative justice services, which are acknowledged as being “…of great benefit to the victim, but require safeguards to prevent secondary and repeat victimisation, intimidation and retaliation.” Restorative Justice is defined as including “…any process whereby the victim and the offender are enabled, if they freely consent, to participate actively in the resolution of matters arising from the criminal offence through the help of an impartial third party.”. In the preamble, the specific example is given of ‘victim-offender mediation’.
99. Article 12 of the Directive deals with rights safeguards in the context of restorative justice.
12(1). Member States shall take measures to safeguard the victim from secondary and repeat victimisation, from intimidation and from retaliation, to be applied when providing any restorative justice services. Such measures shall ensure that victims who choose to participate in restorative justice processes have access to safe and competent restorative justice services, subject to at least the following conditions:
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 25 of 32
(a) the restorative justice services are used only if they are in the interest of the victim, subject to any safety considerations, and are based on the victim’s free and informed consent, which may be withdrawn at any time;
(b) before agreeing to participate in the restorative justice process, the victim is provided with full and unbiased information about that process and the potential outcomes as well as information about the procedures for supervising the implementation of any agreement;
(c) the offender has acknowledged the basic facts of the case;
(d) any agreement is arrived at voluntarily and may be taken into account in any further criminal proceedings;
(e) discussions in restorative justice processes that are not conducted in public are confidential and are not subsequently disclosed, except with the agreement of the parties or as required by national law due to an overriding public interest.
(2). Member States shall facilitate the referral of cases, as appropriate to restorative justice services, including through the establishment of procedures or guidelines on the conditions for such referral.
100. The Directive envisages restorative justice as interactive and primarily victim focused. Victims and family members must provide informed consent to participating in a restorative justice process and must be protected by adequate safeguards in the national law from intimidation or retaliation.
International Human Rights Law and the Requirement for an Effective Investigation
101. States are obliged to provide effective remedies at the domestic level for alleged violations of human rights. This requires States to ensure that every individual has access to a court of law or administrative body that will competently and impartially oversee the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of human rights violations, and provide redress. States must further protect victims who are willing to testify against their oppressors, and who need protection.
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 26 of 32
102. These obligations are reflected in international human rights treaties, including Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which imposes a duty on States not to violate, and to protect against the violation of, human rights, as well as the duty to provide meaningful domestic remedies for human rights violations. Similar obligations are shown under Article 13 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 6 of the International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Article 8 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the African Charter.
103. The willingness and effective ability to bring human rights violators to justice is essential both to a state’s commitment to the rule of law and to deterring such criminal acts in the future. Thus, the duty to investigate, prosecute, and punish human rights violations, though not expressly defined in most treaties, is inherent to a state’s duty to protect human rights and is consistently emphasized by the international monitoring bodies. Where States fail to combat impunity, this will have the effect of undermining the State’s perceived commitment to the rule of law and the public’s confidence in democratic institutions and the requirement that everyone must be equal before, and subject to, the law. A culture of impunity also “widens a gap between those close to the power structures and others, who are vulnerable to human rights abuses.”58
104. The international monitoring bodies have generally denounced broad grants of immunity for the most egregious human rights violations. In Rodriguez v. Uruguay59, the Human Rights Committee concluded that a Uruguayan law that ended the possibility of bringing judicial proceedings against the state for alleged human rights violations during the years of military rule violated the ICCPR. The Committee ruled:
[A]mnesties for gross violations of human rights… are incompatible with the obligations of the State party under the Covenant. The Committee notes with deep concern that the adoption of this law effectively excludes in a number of cases the possibility of investigation into past human rights abuses and thereby
58 See UN doc. E/CN.4/2000/3, Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Report of the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Asma Jahangir, p. 30, at [87].
59 Rodriguez v. Uruguay, Communication No. 322/1988, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/51/D/322/1988 (1994).
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 27 of 32
prevents the State party from discharging its responsibility to provide effective remedies to the victims of those abuses. Moreover, the Committee is concerned that, in adopting this law, the State party has contributed to an atmosphere of impunity which may undermine the democratic order and give rise to further grave human rights violations.
60
105. In a number of cases, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has said that amnesties are inconsistent with the American Convention on Human Rights. In Barrios Altos v Peru, the Court considered concerned ‘self-amnesty’ laws passed by the Fujimori government in 1995 shielding himself and others from immunity for a number of massacres carried out in 1991 and 1992, committed by the paramilitary death squad ‘La Colina’ and ordered by then President Fujimori. The Court held:
This Court considers that all amnesty provisions, provisions on prescription and the establishment of measures designed to eliminate responsibility are inadmissible, because they are intended to prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious human rights violations such as torture, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution and forced disappearance, all of them prohibited because they violate non-derogable rights recognized by international human rights law.61
106. The Court considered that the 1995 amnesty laws violated the rights of the survivors and victim’s families to be heard by a tribunal pursuant to 8.1 ACHR as well as their right to judicial pursuant to Article 25 ACHR. The Court further held that the amnesty laws impeded the investigation, capture, prosecution and conviction of those responsible for the Barrios Altos massacre in contravention of Article 1.1 ACHR. Finally, the Court held that the laws contributed to the defencelessness of victims and the perpetuation of impunity and were "manifestly incompatible with the aims and spirit of the [ACHR]."62
60 Rodriguez v. Uruguay, Communication No. 322/1988, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/51/D/322/1988 (1994) at [12.4].
61 Inter-Am. Court H.R., Barrios Altos v. Peru, Merits, Judgment of 14 March 2001, Series C, No. 75 at [41].
62 Inter-Am. Court H.R., Barrios Altos v. Peru, Merits, Judgment of 14 March 2001, Series C, No. 75 at [43].
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 28 of 32
107. The Court confirmed this approach in a number of later decisions, including La Cantuta
63 and Almonacid v. Chile.64 The decision in La Cantuta concerned the same Peruvian amnesties, while Almonacid v. Chile concerned the extra-judicial killing of a professor in September 1973 by state police forces during the Pinochet regime. It is notable that all cases concerned ‘self-amnesties’ in cases where amnesties were granted in respect of killings carried out by state forces, however, the Court does not distinguish this factor in its jurisprudence. Rather, the Court highlights the ‘jus cogens’ nature of the prohibition of torture and prohibition on extra-judicial killings, and concludes that amnesties shield perpetrators of human rights violations from prosecution. The Court further highlights the effect of amnesty laws on the right of survivors and family members to a fair trial and judicial protection.
Application of Article 2 ECHR to TRP’s Proposals
108. As identified throughout this opinion, Article 2 ECHR creates an obligation of process, but not of outcome.
• When the right to life has been breached, the State must carry out an independent, effective investigation into the causes of that death.
• Although the investigation must reach a certain minimum standard, there is no requirement that any person be prosecuted or convicted for the killing.
109. The primary question for TRP is whether the mediation process proposed complies with the Article 2 obligation to provide an effective investigation into deaths.
110. TRP’s process would appear to comply with several indicia of an ‘effective’ investigation. TRP envisage that the process would:
• Proceed promptly and conclude within a predefined time period, as decided by the parties.
• Be carried out by independent, impartial bodies.
63 Inter-Am. Court H.R., La Cantuta v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of 29 November 2006, Series C, No. 162.
64 Inter-Am. Court H.R., Almonacid Arellano y otros v. Chile, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of 26 September 2006, Series C, No. 154.
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 29 of 32
• Allow for the participation of victims and family members, through the mediation process.
• Allow for a determination of whether a death was caused unlawfully as well as the identity of the perpetrator.
• Allow for public scrutiny of the outcome, through the publication of the Joint Statements by mutual consent of the parties.
111. Two primary questions follow.
a. Will the investigations be adequate?
b. Does Article 2 require the availability of a ‘punishment’?
Adequacy of Investigations
112. TRP’s process envisages that the investigation will be driven primarily by the perpetrator’s disclosure of information. The Truth Recovery Unit will verify that information and follow up any further leads, however, it will not initiate investigations and will not prepare files for prosecution.
113. In theory, it appears that the TRU may be able to carry out an adequate investigation, provided that it is properly funded and facilitated in carrying out its investigations. The civilian investigators would need to receive substantive training and be given cross-border and extraterritorial powers in relation to accessing information and documents.
Does Article 2 require ‘Punishment’?
114. Although it appears that blanket amnesties for unlawful killings are prohibited by the ECHR, the ultimate objective behind this is to prevent impunity for perpetrators. When discussing Article 2, the Court highlights the importance of public scrutiny, as well as the availability of punishment to deter future offences or killings. Neither factor is present in the event of a blanket amnesty.
115. The Court does not appear to have considered a conditional amnesty or immunity, along the lines suggested by TRP.
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 30 of 32
116. There are several key points of distinction from a blanket amnesty (or a ‘self-amnesty’, as seen in the caselaw of the IACHR):
a. The purpose of the conditional amnesty is not to avoid impunity, but rather to allow an avenue for information to be disclosed to family members / survivors of unlawful killings.
b. TRP’s proposal would run parallel to the criminal justice system, and would not replace it. Family members or victims who wished to seek answers through traditional means would not be obliged to engage in the Truth Recovery process.
c. Although TRP’s proposal does not envisage the imposition of penalties, it would allow for public scrutiny through the publication of Joint Statements.
d. TRP’s focus is on legacy investigations. Arguably, the need for deterrence does not arise where any new offences committed would not be dealt with under this framework.
117. The ECtHR has not had the opportunity to examine restorative justice structures – such as TRP’s proposal – in the context of Article 2 ECHR. Should it do so, it may have regard to the international context – including the Victim’s Directive. TRP’s proposals appear to be in line with the minimum rights standards envisaged under that Directive.
118. In particular:
a. Victims and family members can withdraw from the process at any time.
b. Victims and family members can shape the procedures and rules of engagement with the perpetrator through engagement with the Mediation Officer.
c. Safeguards will be put in place – through the Mediation Officer – to prevent intimidation or retaliation against any participating victim, family member or former combatant.
119. For those reasons, it appears that the unavailability of a ‘punishment’ might not be fatal to compliance with Article 2.
120. Finally, it is worth noting that TRP’s process is an attempt to bring closure to families and victims who would otherwise be unlikely to discover the truth about their
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 31 of 32
loved one. In that context, the Court should weigh up the different rights involved – including the family member’s right to the truth about their loved one under Article 8 – and find that the proposed model does provide an ‘effective’ investigation in the circumstances.
Conclusion
121. The current state of affairs in respect of legacy investigations in Northern Ireland is far from satisfactory.
122. TRP attempts to provide an alternative model for truth and reconciliation in the context of unlawful killings during the Troubles. The model is inherently ‘opt-in’ – for both parties.
123. There is no suggestion that the model proposed should entirely replace the prosecution of crimes, or the hearing of legacy inquests. The process is entirely voluntary and dependent on the good will, informed consent and continued participation of both parties.
124. It does not appear that facilitating the mediation process would prevent the State from carrying out an effective investigation. By definition, the legacy cases which would qualify for this model are ones where the State’s ability to investigate is restricted – by the passage of time, by the death of witnesses, by the fear of reprisals or prosecution on the part of participants.
125. Rather, it appears that the mediation process might facilitate the provision of new information which is not available to investigators through other means.
126. TRP’s model closely follows the structure proposed in the Stormont House Agreement, which was intended by all parties to comply with Article 2 obligations. Although a conditional amnesty or immunity is proposed, it appears that this is largely consistent with the ECtHR’s jurisprudence and with international instruments such as the Victim’s Directive.
127. For those reasons it appears to us that the model proposed by TRP would in theory comply with Article 2 of the ECHR.
Opinion on ‘Truth Recovery and Reconcilliation Process’ 07 May 2021
Page 32 of 32
128. Nothing further occurs.
Céile Varley B.L.
Michael Lynn S.C
