Reconciling NI Conflict transitional justice and legacy modalities. A feat in emotional recovery and accountability mental acrobatics.

The hands of the Government of Ireland, are tied by the British Irish Constitutional and international laws, in relation to the Anglo-Irish / Northern Irish Conflict 1968-1998 - Legacy legislation and the NI Legacy Commission. This can only be an Inter-state cooperative process. They are of necessity confined and constrained by British Irish Constitutional and international laws. In particular, the ECHR 1950 and the UK Human Rights Act 1998. This is to enable independent probative investigative procedures and security disclosure processes. There are also the very obvious potential Inter-state: and or Irish Citizen / British Subject / Public authority conflicts of interests. In relation, to human rights compliance/ and or any future Inter-state ECHR 1950 complaints.

Clearly, the Secretary for State for Northern Ireland's NI legacy amendments, are not just about unequal treatment, in favour of veteran British service personnel. This bias may or may not be another exercise in misleading semantics, given that the language and discourse, may be perceived as opportunist and politically mischievous, in a circumstance of an Inter state, peace process diplomacy. Why, because both Ireland and the UK are signatories to the ECHR 1950. The Inter state ECHR 1950: and or friendly settlement procedures, in relation to alleged violations of human rights of Irish Citizens in the British State of Northern Ireland: and or British Subjects, is the first stage to arrive at a resolution. If a resolution is without an agreed liability compliance and cannot be reached. The Inter state: and or friendly settlement becomes the subject of an ECHR 1950 Court of Human Rights violations adjudication. A failure to arrive at a friendly settlement results in the primary rights of the respective citizens to taking priority and should not in principle, as a consequence be negotiable or the subject of any other quid pro quo inter state exercise: and or diplomatic optics / outworking's. In this particular, instance the hands of the Government of Ireland, are tied because of the very obvious potential conflict of interests, involved in aspects of the advocated NI Legacy Commission proposals.

Moreover, The Irish Tánaiste, Simon Harris, is unequivocal in stating that any legacy legislation should correspond with the NI joint framework supporting the NI legacy commission. This is also in accord with the intentions of the transitional justice accountability processes: and or the victims and survivors emotional recovery processes I. E. As mandated by the Belfast Agreement 1998 and reinforced by the Haas Commission.

However, it is debatable as to whether or not the joint framework, should in principle go beyond Inter-state cooperation? This is for a range of reasons and practical restrictions and limitations. Clearly, whereas, the Government of Ireland, should externally participate, in the new HMG NI Legacy Commission. This must be restricted and limited. I. E. There cannot be any actual membership of the new NI legacy commission panel: and or any working groups. To do so may amount to potential conflicts of interest. In particular, as to current and any future Inter state ECHR 1950 Inter party International law processes, relating to the Anglo-Irish Northern Irish Conflict 1968-1998.

Contrary to common misconceptions, it is not within the gift of the Government of Ireland to withdraw their interstate human rights complaints. I. E. in the absence of there being no ECHR 1950 case to answer: and or any bone fide human rights investigative processes not being applicable. In this respect, all institutions of state are public authorities for the purposes of the ECHR 1950.Therefore, all applicable public authorities are responsible both for acting: and or failing to act, in compliance with ECHR 1950 human rights violations protections. Ultimately, it is only the European Court of human rights which adjudicates on violations of ECHR 1950. Notwithstanding, the continued prosecution of those members of the British Security Services responsible, in connection with the homicides of 363 Nationalist Roman Catholics. I. E. During the Anglo-Irish Northern Irish Conflict 1968-1998.

Moreover, any further restrictions and limitations which may or may not emanate out of impending or future British national security Supreme Court decisions. A simplistic solution to one aspect of the legacy investigative component. Is to appoint Special Counsel to filter out any so called sensitive information. The legacy Investigating Judge will have previously instructed Special Counsel, as part of his role. To furnish the answers to a number of questions. For example as follows:

1. Was the deceased killed by a proscribed unlawful paramilitary organisation? Or the British Security Services: Or someone else?

2. Name any such organisations.

3. Confirm if the individuals are identified or not?

4. Confirm if members of the British Security Services: and or other agencies, were involved in collusion with these entities: and or individuals in isolation. I. E. In relation to involvement in these homicides or attempted homicides?

5. Name the British Security Services: and or any outside agencies involved. I. E. Directly or indirectly?

6. Confirm if members of Proscribed unlawful paramilitary organisations, were involved in the killing of civilians or members of these organisations: and or were colluding with the British Security Services in these homicides?

7. Confirm if the former RUC or Special branch attempted to investigate any of these homicides: and or were prevented, constrained or restricted in their investigations?

8. To include any identifiable motives for these unlawful homicides. For example, hypothetically, the killing of Northern Irish defence solicitors.

The answer to these questions can be presented to the legacy Judge. This is without any sensitive information being disclosed. Moreover, the answers to these questions may or may not cause the legacy judge to inform the HMG and the Government of Ireland, as to the extent of State involvement, in these homicides. I. E. during the Anglo-Irish Northern Irish Conflict 1968-1998. These investigative findings will thereafter, be the subject of an ECHR 1950 inter-state human rights violations process.

Anything, short of this approach: and or a similar approach, is of no probative value.

Mindful that this is of course a combined transitional justice, interactive accountability and emotional recovery process.

There are of course many more questions Special Counsel can simultaneously source out, during the filtering process. This is a matter for any viable legacy commission? It may be noteworthy, that the System of using Special Counsel, filtering of sensitive data / public immunity issues, was already employed. This was open to be imposed on all of those charged with scheduled criminal offences, and membership of unlawful proscribed paramilitary organisations: and or other specific terrorist / offences against the British State: Via the Special Diplock Courts not in a properly constituted criminal court with a judge and jury: and or the regular rules of evidence and disclosure. This was most especially, when the official secrets legislation was triggered?

It will be interesting to examine the mental acrobatics involved in the indicated equally of treatment leveling up aimed at squaring the circle. I. E. as between the British Security Services and the Northern Irish British Subjects, in relation to past conflict related unlawful homicides. In particular, since all of the 363 nationalist / homicides committed by HMG Security services took place 51 to 30 years ago. Those involved in these actions knew at the time of these killings the full facts and truth. The British Military police: and or the MOD / HMG will have known the facts at the latest by the end of the week? Despite this these British Service men have enjoyed their liberty for this entire period of time. These British Service men are now receiving, the Benefit of the protections of the Police and Criminal Evidence 1989 Act and the incorporation of the ECHR 1950 into UK domestic law. I. E. Articles 5 and 6 ECHR 1950 - the Human Rights as to detention and liberty and a fair trial in a properly constituted criminal court with a judge and jury and the regular rules of evidence and disclosure. ( the option to no jury on application). Again squaring this circle will require a feat in mental acrobatics. Which may in all probability, only be leveled up by an ECHR 1950 Inter- State European Court of Human Rights violations adjudications / enforcement International law process.

See less