ICCL publishes follow-up report to UN Committee Against Torture

ICCL Follow-up report to UNCAT

This report by the ICCL was submitted to the United Nations Committee Against Torture (CAT) on 26 November 2018 and forms part of the process of ‘follow-up’ to the CAT’s second set of Concluding Observations on Ireland, published in August 2017. The CAT designated three of the recommendations in its August 2017 Concluding Observations as ‘follow-up’ issues, requiring a response from the Irish Government within one year.

In this report, the ICCL:

Demands that Ireland ratify the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and create a National Preventive Mechanism that independently inspects all places of detention in Ireland, including de facto detention in health and social care settings, and in Direct Provision.
Calls for swift changes to the powers and functions of the Garda complaints mechanism, and criticises the secrecy that characterises many investigations into alleged Garda misconduct.
Rejects the Government’s repeated claim that it knows of ‘no credible evidence’ that systematic torture or ill-treatment, or criminal abuse, was perpetrated in Magdalene Laundries and calls for a truth-telling process, and proper accountability and redress.

The ICCL’s report to the CAT in 2017 contributed to the CAT’s Concluding Observations along with the reports of numerous other NGOs working in Ireland.

The Irish Government’s Follow-up Report to the CAT was published in August 2018. This report by the ICCL provides further information to the CAT in relation to the three ‘follow-up’ issues.

Coalition for Civil Society Freedom event

Keeping The People’s Voice in Power

An event supporting the campaign for Electoral Act reform

WHAT:

The Coalition for Civil Society Freedom invites all to attend a public meeting on Thursday, 11 October from 2pm – 5pm at Woodquay Venue, Dublin. The purpose of this meeting is to raise issues and inspire discussion relating to the methods currently available to people in Ireland when it comes to engaging with the political system. Representatives from the EU Fundamental Rights Agency (EU FRA) and Civicus (the World Alliance for Citizen Participation) will speak from 2pm until 3pm and the public meeting will follow.

WHY:

Your vote shouldn’t be the only way that you can engage with the political system.

If you’re concerned about an issue, you should be able to start a voluntary or not-for-profit group. Your group should also be able to fundraise and engage in advocacy, ie speak to your local TD, start an awareness campaign, or organise a protest. In short, you should be able to make your voice heard.

However, in Ireland right now, if your organisation engages in both fundraising and advocacy you risk falling foul of the Electoral Act and the body which oversees its enforcement – the Standards in Public Offices Commission (SIPOC).Your organisation may be forced to close down, and you yourself could be threatened with legal action.

That’s why the Coalition for Civil Society Freedom is campaigning for reform of the Electoral Act. We’re campaigning to keep #thePeoplesVoice in power.

Join us from 2pm to discuss what FRA described in January as “a blanket ban on foreign funding” in Ireland. Afterwards we will host a discussion on real-life stories of the impact the Electoral Act is having on community and voluntary organisations. We will encourage people to share their stories. We’ve already seen Education Equality have to dissolve and transfer to a limited company which can’t accept donations of over €100. Amnesty have had to battle SIPOC in court, and risked losing credibility with the public, over legitimate international funding for a human rights campaign. Organisations have been threatened with legal action and some have had to close down altogether. Both Amnesty and Education Equality will speak at the public meeting. We hope you can join us for this event.

If you can’t join us, why not add your voice to the campaign for reform here

Scottish Minister for Older People and Equalities visits ICCL

On 11th September 2018, ICCL was honoured to welcome the Scottish Government’s Minister for Older People and Equalities, Christina McKelvie, to our offices.

ICCL team with Minister McKelvie.
L-R Aoife Masterson, Elizabeth Farries, Min. McElvie, Liam Herrick, Chris McCartin, Sinead Nolan and Dr Maeve O’Rourke

The Minister was in Ireland to meet with Irish Government and human rights bodies and organisations to discuss cooperation and areas of common interest between Ireland and Scotland in relation to equality and human rights.

During her visit she met with Minister of State David Stanton TD, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and with ICCL. The visit was organised by the Scottish Government’s innovation and Investment Hub in Ireland.

Minister McKelvie and team with Liam Herrick of ICCL

The issues which we discussed with the Minister included current issues relating to women’s equality, structures and policies for promoting human rights,Traveller rights and the human rights impact of Brexit. The Minister shared information about a number of innovative measures being taken by the Scottish Government to integrate human rights and equality provisions in all aspects of Government policy, budgeting and planning.

ICCL believes that there is great potential for Ireland and Scotland to learn from each other in these areas and we look forward to future cooperation with colleagues in Scotland on issues of human rights and equality post-Brexit.

L-R Dr Maeve O’Rourke, Liam Herrick, Minister McKelvie and Sandy McPhee, representative of the Scottish government in Ireland.

ICCL Statement on Ireland v United Kingdom

ICCL disappointed by European Court of Human Rights’ decision in Ireland v UK case; highlights need for independent investigation into 1970s interrogation practices

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) today expressed its disappointment over the European Court of Human Rights’ decision not to revise its conclusions in the 1978 case of Ireland v United Kingdom regarding the ‘deep interrogation’ techniques practiced by the RUC in Northern Ireland in 1971 and 1972. The Irish Government had applied to the European Court for a revision of its 1978 finding that five techniques perpetrated against 14 men for a week – wall-standing, hooding, exposure to constant noise, sleep deprivation, and deprivation of food and drink – amounted to ‘inhuman and degrading’ treatment, rather than ‘torture’.

The Irish Government argued that, had the Court been aware in 1978 of information now available in public archives (due to the 30-year rule), it would have concluded that the five techniques together constituted torture. The Irish Government pointed to records which demonstrate that, contrary to the assertions of the medical expert chosen by the UK Government at the time of the original hearing, the same medical expert knew that the health effects of the interrogation techniques could be long-lasting and severe. The Irish Government also pointed to a raft of internal UK Government documents which demonstrate that the interrogation techniques were authorised at Ministerial level, that a political decision was taken that there should be no investigations with a view to prosecuting perpetrators, and that there was a concerted effort at an official level to prevent the European Court (and the complainants) from accessing information about the techniques and how they were authorised.

Liam Herrick, Director of the ICCL, said:

‘The European Court’s judgment is deeply disappointing, because it takes a narrow technical approach to the original Court’s reasoning and fails to send a strong message to deter States from abusing the Court’s process in the way that the UK Government did in this case. Today’s decision takes a narrow view of the facts that the original judgment was based on and says that it cannot be sure that the 1978 Court would have changed its position based on the fresh material. Essentially, the Court says that its reasoning under Article 3 of the Convention is more sophisticated now than it was in 1978, and that it cannot intervene at this stage because of the principle of the finality of judgments.’

Maeve O’Rourke, Senior Research and Policy Officer at the ICCL, said:

‘The European Court’s judgment is clear: the same treatment today would be considered torture. Although this decision is a setback for the ‘hooded men’, it must not stop States and human rights advocates from working to eradicate interrogation techniques that deliberately inflict suffering on people who are powerless. That is the essence of torture. Unfortunately, the techniques inflicted by the RUC in the 1970s spread and still persist around the world. The final report of the Brazilian Truth Commission attests to the fact that methods practised by the Brazilian military in torture centres in the 1970s were taught to Brazilian army officials in the UK and based on the techniques used in Northern Ireland. Similar “pressure techniques” are accepted in Israel today – a fact recently criticised by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.’

Maeve O’Rourke added:

‘It remains the case that the interrogation techniques which the ‘hooded men’ suffered were absolutely prohibited under the European Convention on Human Rights in the 1970s, because inhuman and degrading treatment is outlawed to the same extent as torture under Article 3 of the Convention. Therefore the men in question, and the families of those who are now deceased, still have a right to an effective investigation which is independent and capable of leading to the identification and prosecution of perpetrators. They are still seeking that investigation. Their experience shows that the passage of time does not diminish the effects of impunity on those who have suffered torture or other prohibited ill-treatment. This is something that was recognised by the UN Committee Against Torture in 2014, when it stated that the right to comprehensive redress and accountability for torture and ill-treatment continues regardless of when in the past the abuse occurred.’