British Irish

A HUMAN RIGHTS DAY MESSAGE

2007 has been a very successful year for British Irish rights watch. Not only did an independent evaluation of our work describe us as “an outstanding success story”, but we were also awarded the Beacon Award 2007 for Northern Ireland. Another highlight of the year was the speech in September by one of our Sponsors, Professor Kader Asmal MP, on designing a Bill of Rights for a diverse society.

BIRW is as busy as ever. As Northern Ireland emerges from conflict, many people who were too frightened to ask questions in the past, or who did not want to claim any special status when so many others were also suffering, are seeking our help. Deaths relating to the conflict still occur and there are many outstanding cases and issues that have yet to be resolved.

As the truth begins to surface about the intelligence services’ deep penetration of both loyalist and republican paramilitary groups, there are two questions that we hear over and over again: why was the conflict allowed to go on for so long, and why did so many people have to die? Of one thing we are certain: the past in Northern Ireland can only be dealt with by confronting it and acknowledging that great wrongs have been done on all sides. Sweeping the past under the carpet is not an option. Moving forward together into a future necessarily shaped but not encumbered by the past will take a great deal of time, courage and imagination. Above all, the people of Northern Ireland must be trusted to find their own solutions to their own problems.

Next year will be an important one. BIRW will be working on the Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland; monitoring the inquiries into the murders of Rosemary Nelson, Robert Hamill and Billy Wright; continuing to campaign for independent inquiries in the cases of Patrick Finucane and others; and continuing to assist those whose issues fall within our remit, regardless of their religious, political or community affiliations.

As ever thanks are due for all their hard work to our Director Jane Winter, our Deputy Director Lucy Claridge, our Researcher Caroline Parkes, our Administrator Elizabeth Folarin, and to all our interns and volunteers, not forgetting our Sponsors and the Management Committee. Grateful thanks also to all our funders and all those who have made donations in support of our work. All of their contributions are much appreciated.

Sarah Cooke OBE

Chair

British Irish rights watch

10 December 2007

DIRECTOR’S REVIEW OF THE YEAR

2007 has seen some historic developments in Northern Ireland. The year began with the publication of the Police Ombudsman’s report on Operation Ballast, which took as its starting point the death of Raymond McCord Jnr and ended painting a damning picture of widespread and systemic collusion between members of police Special Branch and the UVF covering a period of many years. Her investigation led to the uncovering of information about the murders of 10 people and 72 instances of other crime, including attempted murders, "punishment" shootings and attacks, drug dealing and additional criminality.

In March, elections showed resounding support from all sides of the community for the re-establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly and, in May, the Assembly was re-convened. It is good to see the Assembly functioning once again, and we very much hope that its members will now get down to work to restore the huge democratic deficit under which Northern Ireland has laboured since its inception.

However, it is perhaps worth remembering that the most recent suspension of the Assembly followed two very dubious episodes – the so-called Castlereagh break-in and the Stormont spy ring – and was clearly intended to shore up the ailing fortunes of the Ulster Unionist Party. Not only did that mission fail, but there were two other casualties of the whole sorry process who are not always remembered. One was Laurence Zaitschek, a BIRW client, whom the police say they want to extradite from the USA for the Castlereagh fiasco, but they have been saying that for years and have yet to produce any real evidence against him. In the meantime, he is missing his son’s childhood, a high price to pay for being used as a figleaf. The other was Denis Donaldson, outed as an informer in the aftermath of the Stormont spy ring trial – which ultimately collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions – for whose murder no-one has been brought to justice. We sincerely hope that the new dispensation will mean that such dubious goings on become a thing of the past. We fear, though, that such issues represent merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of the collusion that has pervaded the conflict and peace process, creating far too many casualties in its wake.

In June, the Pat Finucane Centre came across an astonishing document released under the Freedom of Information Act entitled “Operation Banner”. This gives the British army’s views on its deployment in Northern Ireland from 1969 until 2006. The document has some serious mistakes and some fascinating gaps – for instance, there is scarcely a mention of intelligence matters or collusion – and may be seen as controversial by those who read it, whatever their own position. Nonetheless, it is a historic document. Operation Banner was the overall name given to the army’s presence in Northern Ireland, which officially came to an end on 31 July 2007, another resounding date for the history books. A garrison of under 5,000 troops is all that remains. How ironic then, that on 1 August 2007 the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act came into force, which restored to soldiers, in Northern Ireland only, the power to stop and search civilians and hold them for up to four hours.

In September we had the great pleasure of hosting one of our Sponsors, Professor Kader Asmal MP, who gave an inspirational speech on designing a Bill of Rights for a diverse society. Another of our Sponsors, Michael Mansfield QC, chaired the event, and we are grateful to both of them, as well as our third Sponsor, Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws QC, for their long-term support for and commitment to our work.

In November, the Police Ombudsman, Nuala O’Loan was replaced by Al Hutchinson on 6 November 2007. She will be a hard act to follow. Her rigorous independence and her willingness to probe some very difficult issues, including collusion, have meant that she has paid a high personal price in terms of serious physical attacks on her family. They have also meant that she has set some very high standards for her successor. It is alarming that he has already described his office as a “blunt instrument” when it comes to dealing with controversial cases arising out of the legacy of the past.

2008 looks to be an equally eventful year, with the results of the Bill of Rights Forum working groups in March and the continuation of the public inquiries into the murders of Billy Wright, Rosemary Nelson and Robert Hamill. In the interests of justice, we hope that it might also see the publication of the conclusions of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, which have been eagerly awaited since 2005.

Jane Winter

Director

British Irish rights watch

10 December 2007

JANE WINTER WINS PRESTIGIOUS

BEACON PRIZE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

In November, Jane Winter won the prestigious Beacon Prize for Northern Ireland in recognition of her work with British Irish rights watch and her dedication to the promotion of human rights. The Prize was awarded at a formal ceremony, when all winners were inaugurated as Beacon Fellows, a community of Beacon Prize winners who together champion charitable causes across the globe and nurture a wider culture of giving in the UK.

JANE ACCEPTS THE BEACON AWARD FROM BROADCASTER MARTYN LEWIS CBE

Accepting the award, Jane expressed her gratitude to the Beacon Fellowship Trust for this great honour, and those who nominated her. She acknowledged her debt to the staff, volunteers, interns, Sponsors and Management Committee, all of whom have contributed to BIRW’s success, and to the funders who support our work. Above all, Jane thanked all the people we work with in Northern Ireland and elsewhere around the world, without whom BIRW would not exist, and from whom we have learned so much.

INQUIRIES

Throughout 2007, we continued to engage with the Billy Wright, Robert Hamill and Rosemary Nelson Inquiries, to campaign for an independent public inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane, and to regularly advise and liaise with the families of the victims and their lawyers. There were a number of developments in all four cases.

INQUIRY INTO PATRICK FINUCANE CASE

BIRW CONTINUES TO CAMPAIGN FOR INQUIRY

Although a full public inquiry into the Finucane case has not yet been established, our campaigning work in 2007 has seen a ‘negative’ success in that the government has not been able to announce an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. The Finucane family, BIRW and other NGOS are implacably opposed to such an inquiry because it would be under the direct control of the Northern Ireland Office. However, this has been used by the government as an excuse to block all headway on achieving the independent public inquiry recommended by Judge Cory. The government had previously announced it would hold public inquiries into three of the Northern Ireland cases, but said it could not determine “the way ahead” in the Finucane case until “prosecutions” were over. The trial of one loyalist, Ken Barrett, began in September 2004: he pleaded guilty and was convicted. The Director of Public Prosecutions spent nearly three years considering some 20 other files sent to him by the Stevens 3 Team, whose investigation led to Barrett’s prosecution, before finally deciding in July this year that he would not be making any further prosecutions. As we suspected, the promise of prosecutions was merely another delaying tactic.

AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR INQUIRY

On 30 January, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution by an overwhelming majority calling for a full, independent, public and judicial inquiry into the murder of Belfast lawyer Patrick Finucane, one of the most notorious cases of collusion arising out of the conflict. The resolution was sponsored by Representative Chris Smith and 27 other members of Congress, and received wide cross-party support. It was subsequently passed by the Senate in March 2007. The courage of the Finucane family was praised by many speakers and the work of UN Special Rapporteur Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy, Judge Peter Cory and human rights groups including British Irish RIGHTS WATCH, was highly commended. Many speakers emphasised the positive role that a proper inquiry into the Finucane case could play in the Northern Ireland peace process.

THE MYSTERY OF THE STEVENS ARCHIVE

Reports surfaced in the media in April that both the Ministry of Defence and the intelligence service, MI5, were trying to retrieve from the Stevens Archive reports amassed as a result of the three enquiries by Lord Stevens into collusion in Northern Ireland and the murder of Patrick Finucane. These moves appeared to have the potential for frustrating any inquiry into the case of Patrick Finucane, and also were said to have possible implications into the inquiries into the murders of Rosemary Nelson, Robert Hamill and Billy Wright. We raised these concerns with the three inquiries, with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of the Judiciary, with the Irish government, with the Northern Ireland Office, and with the HET and the PONI, both of whom may require access to the archive. It would appear that our intervention has led to the resolution of this issue.

Later in the year, we were concerned to discover that the Consultative Group on the Past, set up by the Northern Ireland Office to look at how Northern Ireland can best achieve a shared future not overshadowed by the legacy of the conflict, has apparently had full access to the Stevens 3 Report. This report was delivered to the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) in 2003 and deals with the murder of Patrick Finucane. The Consultative Group are said to have been deeply shocked by the degree of collusion in the murder unveiled by the report. The Finucane family has had no sight of this report and it seems to us entirely wrong that they should be denied access to it while other civilians have seen it. As a result, we are calling for the Stevens 3 Report to be made available to the Finucane family, and have also voiced these concerns to the Consultative Group.

BILLY WRIGHT INQUIRY

INQUIRY HEARINGS BEGIN BUT FACE PROBLEMS

The Billy Wright Inquiry commenced its full hearings on 30 May 2007. Our joint observer with the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ), Laura McMahon, was present throughout the hearings, providing us with invaluable feedback to monitor and assess the Inquiry’s progress. Her reports are available on our website.

Our observer’s feedback has raised some concerns about the way the Inquiry is proceeding, and we have written to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland expressing concern that the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) and the PSNI have both failed to disclose intelligence materials relevant to the work of the Billy Wright Inquiry. Such obstruction of an inquiry by government agencies does not foster public confidence in these institutions. In addition, the Inquiry has since decided to adjourn the proceedings while an interim report is produced concerning the failure of the PSNI to comply with the Inquiry’s disclosure requirements and, as a result, full hearings will not re-commence before the end of January 2008.

We have raised concerns about the decision to produce such a report with the Inquiry itself, since the usual course of action would be to report the matter to the Attorney-General, so that he can consider whether to bring contempt proceedings. We have also voiced concern that the Crown Solicitor’s Office and the Security Services have both been granted full participant status, yet there is no mention of this or the reasons for doing so on the Inquiry’s website. This is an important issue, not least since the Security Services appear to have a direct interest and/or involvement in Billy Wright’s murder and/or the events surrounding it. Indeed, the Billy Wright Inquiry is far from transparent; unlike other inquiries, it has not published a list of participants and their lawyers on its website – another issue we have raised with them.

DAVID WRIGHT JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION

On 28 June 2007, the Court of Appeal dismissed David Wright’s application for judicial review of the decision to convert the inquiry into one under the Inquiries Act 2005. BIRW, in conjunction with CAJ and Amnesty International, made a third party intervention in the case, arguing that the Act could not provide an inquiry which is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) also made an intervention in support of the Wright family. Prior to this, David Wright had been granted judicial review of the decision and therefore the Court of Appeal’s approach was a worrying reversal. Having received legal advice, David Wright decided not to appeal this decision because of concerns about adding to the delay and the fear of setting a bad precedent.

CHALLENGE TO INQUIRY’S TERMS OF REFERENCE

Progress of the Inquiry was threatened when, in July 2007, six individuals who were prison officers at the time of the murder of Billy Wright applied for leave to judicially review a decision of the Secretary of State in June 2007 not to amend the Billy Wright Inquiry’s terms of reference. They claimed that the terms of reference could lead to a finding of criminal or civil liability, and therefore fell outside the remit of the Inquiries Act 2005, which prohibits such a finding. BIRW successfully applied for leave to intervene in the application and made substantial submissions arguing that leave should not be granted, as we were concerned in particular that a judicial review would significantly delay the Inquiry, and nor did we wish to see any narrowing of its remit. We were successful: in August 2007, the court found that the terms of reference did not require the Inquiry to reach a conclusion that is incompatible with the Inquiries Act, and that the Inquiry is fully aware of the parameters of the terms of reference. Although the prison officers threatened to appeal this decision, this never came to fruition, because doubt was cast over the role of the Crown Solicitor’s Office, who represented the six prison officers, and their potential conflict of interest in acting for those who were seeking to frustrate the Inquiry’s fact-finding capacity, as they also represent the Secretary of State. Since then the Inquiry has ruled that it is proper for the Crown Solicitor’s Office to represent individual officers.

ROBERT HAMILL INQUIRY

hamill inquiry appeal reGARDING anonymity

On 31 July 2007, BIRW observed the House of Lords hearing allowing an appeal by the Robert Hamill Inquiry challenging an application for anonymity by a number of police officers who are key witnesses to the Inquiry. The case considered whether compelling the police officers to give evidence without anonymity would violate Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, or the common law duty of fairness to the witnesses. The House of Lords decided that, as no police officer has been killed in Northern Ireland since 1998, the risk to the witnesses’ lives was not real or immediate, and would not be greatly increased were they to give evidence without anonymity. As a result, it would not be unfair to require a witness to give evidence without the protection of anonymity.

Although this decision is to be welcomed, BIRW were concerned that a separate aspect of the judgment might have caused further unnecessary delay. The issue was whether the original decision of the Inquiry not to offer the witnesses anonymity was reasonable; this issue was not considered in any of the previous hearings. The House of Lords returned this issue to be decided by the High Court, a process which would have taken many months to resolve and therefore delay the Inquiry. However, the parties have now decided not to pursue this matter. In spite of this development, the Inquiry has been severely delayed by the anonymity issue: although the Inquiry opened in May 2005, substantive hearings are not expected to start until April 2008 at the earliest.

ROSEMARY NELSON INQUIRY

BIRW APPLIES FOR FULL PARTICIPANT STATUS

In August 2007, BIRW took the momentous step of applying to the Rosemary Nelson Inquiry for Full Participant Status. We believed that an independent presence might assist the Inquiry in arriving at the truth about all the circumstances surrounding the murder of the human rights lawyer in 1999. Apart from her family, the other participants – the police, the Northern Ireland Office, the army, and the intelligence service MI5 – all have vested interests in the outcome of the inquiry. BIRW also has an in-depth knowledge of the events leading up to the murder and the investigations which followed it.

Unfortunately, the Inquiry denied this request, but they praised our work on the case very highly and invited us to continue to make submissions. We would like to thank our legal team for all their help and hard work. The Rosemary Nelson Inquiry held case management hearings in October, at which they decided that the full hearings will commence on 15 April 2008. BIRW will continue to employ an independent observer during these hearings.

CASEWORK

BIRW was instructed in 14 new cases in 2007, all of which are demanding and complex, requiring a holistic approach. In addition to working on these matters, we continued to advise and represent clients in our 55 ongoing cases. We also regularly received enquiries which required a simple response, providing further advice and/or referrals to solicitors as appropriate. Some examples of our casework are set out below.

RAYMOND MCCORD: POLICE OMBUDSMAN PUBLISHES DAMNING REPORT ON COLLUSION

In January 2007, the then Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland (PONI), Nuala O’Loan, published her findings in the investigation into the murder of Raymond McCord. BIRW acts for his family. Her investigation into his brutal murder by the UVF led her to uncover information about the murders of 10 people and 72 instances of other crime, including 10 attempted murders, 10 "punishment" shootings, 13 punishment attacks, a bomb attack in Monaghan, 7 instances of drug dealing, and additional criminality, including criminal damage, extortion and intimidation. She also uncovered widespread and systemic collusion between members of police Special Branch and the UVF covering a period of many years.

While the government acknowledged that her report made “disturbing reading”, they tried to argue that only a handful of officers were involved, that the collusion was all in the past, and that recent reforms have ensured that it will never happen again. Astonishingly, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, who was RUC Chief Constable and had control over Special Branch during much of the period covered by the report, has claimed publicly to have had no knowledge whatsoever of the collusion that was happening on his watch.

As a result, we wrote to the Prime Minister to say that there remain many outstanding issues in relation to collusion, past and present, and that the Inquiries Act 2005 means that Raymond McCord’s father, and many others like him, will not get the independent public inquiry he is rightly demanding. We called for the repeal of the Inquiries Act, the establishment of a mechanism that can provide an effective procedure for the investigation of all collusion cases, and for Sir Ronnie Flanagan to be removed from his present post as Chief Inspector of Constabularies and stripped of his public honours. Later in the year, we sent a confidential report about the murder of Raymond McCord to the PSNI Historical Enquiries Team (HET).

ballymurphy

Throughout 2007, we continued to monitor the events in Ballymurphy. This conflict is ostensibly about social tension between two extended families, yet it is also a conflict about paramilitary control of the local area and about wider political commitment to policing and security in Northern Ireland and the peace process. Thus far, the violence has included the murder of two men, the attempted murder of members of both families, criminal damage to property, intimidation and exiling.

The problems posed by the conflict are wide-ranging and multi-faceted. Responding to these issues requires a flexible and all-encompassing approach. In 2007, our work has included engaging with the police, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and community members on the ground, and providing a briefing to an MP.

MARTIN O’HAGAN

We have sent a comprehensive and confidential report to the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression concerning the murder of journalist Martin O’Hagan in 2001, following an exceptionally brief and perfunctory inquest in December 2006 which did not examine all the circumstances surrounding this brutal murder. In our view, the inquest did not provide an effective investigation in compliance with the right to life provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, and we support the National Union of Journalists’ call for a fresh police investigation by an external police service. We have also sent our report to the PONI, who is currently investigating a complaint about the failure of the police investigation.

As a result of our involvement in this case, we were able to engage with the PSNI’s Retrospective Murder Review Unit (RMRU), which looks at unsolved murders between April 1998, where the remit of the HET ends, and April 2004, when the PSNI’s new serious crimes department came into operation. Martin O’Hagan’s case is one of the first cases the RMRU are investigating. We have met the team that is working on that investigation to discuss our confidential report on the killing. This has reopened the investigation, providing new lines of inquiry and facilitating witnesses coming forward.

DAVID McILWAINE

In early 2007, we met with members of the PONI team to discuss the complaint made by Paul McIlwaine, whom we represent, concerning the police investigation into the murders of his son David and another young man, Andrew Robb, in 2000. Following the meeting, we compiled a lengthy and confidential report, which was sent to the HET and the PONI. This identified over 150 questions in 35 separate areas which have been raised by the failed police investigation into these brutal killings. Shortly after, the Preliminary Inquiry began into the cases of Steven Brown and Mark Burcombe, who were both committed for trial for the murders. The trial is due to take place in February 2008.

JOHN CRAWFORD

BIRW have submitted a confidential report to the HET on the murder of John Crawford in 1974, attributed to the UVF. We have been researching this case since late 2005 and it is hoped that the HET will be able to provide his family with the truth behind his murder. Since then, we have attended a meeting with his family and the HET and received an update on the investigation into his death.

laUrence zaitschek

Five years after the infamous incident at Castlereagh when intelligence documents were stolen from under the noses of the police, Laurence Zaitschek (known in the media as “Larry the Chef”) still has the shadow of extradition hanging over him, which has caused major problems in his access to his eight-year-old son. Despite constant claims by the police that he is wanted on serious charges, no extradition warrant has ever been issued. This abuse of process has gone on for far too long; it is time it was resolved. Therefore, in March, we wrote to members of the British, Irish and American governments asking for their support. It is hoped that Laurence Zaitschek will shortly be able to resume telephone contact with his son. Questions remain as to why Laurence Zaitschek’s son and former wife remain on the Witness Protection Scheme.

CAPENHURST LISTENING TOWER CASE

We have been continuing to liaise with our legal team in our European Court of Human Rights case against the UK government which claims unlawful interception of communications between us and third parties by the government’s Capenhurst Listening Tower, from 1990 to 1997. Further observations were sent in to Court in mid-October. BIRW is an applicant in this case, together with Liberty and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. The case raises issues of fundamental importance regarding the rights to privacy, confidentiality and freedom of expression. We now await judgment from the Court, although it may be some time before this is delivered.

COSHQUIN BOMBING

We have sent the HET a confidential report about this appalling case. We have also made a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission concerning coverage by three newspapers, the Irish News, the Derry Journal, and the Derry News, of developments in the HET’s investigation of the so-called “human bombing” at Coshquin, in which the IRA murdered six soldiers by forcing army chef Patsy Gillespie to drive a car loaded with explosives into the checkpoint. We were particularly disappointed by the papers’ response to our original letters to them, which displayed scant regard for the feelings of relatives of the victims when they open the paper to be confronted, without warning, by photographs of their loved ones accompanied by incorrect and misleading information.

journalist attacked on the airwaves

We have taken up the case of respected journalist Alan Murray, who was named during a Radio Ulster phone-in and called a liar and accused by UDA man Frankie Gallagher of consorting with another loyalist faction. The BBC failed to leap to the defence of a fellow journalist, and we have taken up the matter with the BBC, the National Union of Journalists, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression.

REPORT INTO THE MURDER OF DAMIEN WALSH

BIRW has submitted a confidential report on the murder of Damien Walsh to the PONI and the HET, in preparation of the HET investigation and to complement the existing PONI investigation. Damien Walsh, a 17 year old from Poleglass, was murdered in 1993 at his workplace in Twinbrook. No-one has ever been charged with his murder.

colin worton meets the first minister

In July, BIRW accompanied Colin Worton and his family to a meeting with Dr Paisley MP MLA, the First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Dr Paisley has long championed the case of the UDR Four, alongside whom Colin Worton was tried for the murder of Adrian Carroll. Colin Worton was found by the court to have no case to answer, but the army refused to keep him on as a soldier and he never received a penny in compensation for the loss of his employment or for the two and a half years he spent in custody. Dr Paisley promised to raise Colin Worton’s case with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and Colin Worton is himself seeking a meeting with the Secretary of State, so far without success.

ROISIN McALISKEY EXTRADITION REFUSED

We were pleased to hear that the application to extradite Roisin McAliskey, the daughter of civil rights activist Bernadette Devlin McAliskey, to Germany, was denied by a Belfast court on 23 November 2007. The application related to her alleged involvement in the 1996 Osnabruck bombing, for which Germany had previously sought her extradition. Although she was detained for 16 months, she was released in 1998 on the grounds that her extradition would be “unjust and oppressive”. Refusing the second request for her extradition, Judge Burgess stated that it “would be oppressive because of the passage of time”. Roisin McAliskey had believed that the threat of extradition was behind her, as a result of her earlier release in 1998, and the Attorney General’s subsequent statement in 2000 that there were no grounds for instituting proceedings against her in the UK. To extradite her now would be oppressive, especially given the mental trauma she had suffered. BIRW had been closely monitoring the case and providing advice and assistance to the solicitors acting on her behalf.

McGURK’S BAR BOMB

We continue to wait for the HET to release the report into the McGurk’s Bar bomb. We represent the family of one of the victims, who are particularly distressed at both the length of time taken and the fact that the HET keep providing ‘false’ deadlines, which raise the family’s expectations. The family have posed a question to the Policing Board, via a local politician, regarding the conduct of the HET.

SHEENA CAMPBELL

We have recently been contacted by the parents of Sheena Campbell, who was shot and killed in suspicious circumstances whilst with friends in a hotel bar in October 1992. We are advising her family and conducting an investigation into her death.

POLICY WORK

Our policy work in 2007 continued to address a range of issues relevant to Northern Ireland, from counter-terror measures to criminal justice and policing issues. This included a meeting with Paul Goggins MP, Minister of State for Northern Ireland, during which we discussed the under-use and lack of utility of the Inquiries Act 2005, the deployment of plastic bullets and tasers in Northern Ireland, tackling collusion and dealing with the legacy of the past, devolution, the reform of the inquest system and policing. We also prepared policy submissions on the following:

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Justice & Security (Northern Ireland) ACT

Early in 2007, BIRW sent a briefing to all the members of the House of Commons Committee which were considering the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill. The Bill retains trials without a jury in certain cases, gives insufficient new powers to the NIHRC, and gives policing powers to the army. While this Bill looks like a collection of relatively minor miscellaneous items, it in fact contains a number of very significant provisions. The Explanatory Notes claim that the Bill is intended to deliver “security normalisation” in Northern Ireland, yet in reality, it entrenches and in some regards extends draconian powers originally adopted in what we regard as ill-judged responses to the conflict in Northern Ireland. Instead of taking the opportunity to move away from legislation that has made matters worse in Northern Ireland, we found a retrograde, backward looking Bill that has at its heart an inability to trust democratic principles and, above all, the ability of the people of Northern Ireland to move forward to a peaceful and stable society. In spite of our concerns, the Bill was approved and came into force in August 2007.

DEVOLUTION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND

British Irish rights watch was disappointed that we were not invited to participate in the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Inquiry into the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters. Nevertheless, we were not deterred and, despite the short deadline, put forward a submission which supported the need for the devolution of policing and justice matters while indicating the need for some changes to the criminal justice system itself, for instance in relation to inquests. We continue to monitor the progress of devolution.

COUNTER TERROR LEGISLATION

YET MORE counter-terrorism proposals

BIRW have submitted a response to the Government’s August 2007 consultation on counter-terrorism proposals. In particular, we outlined our opposition to the extension of the time during which an individual can be held without charge, which we believe could have serious psychological and social implications for both the detainee and their family, pointing out that the proposals undermine the fundamental principles of the British legal system such as the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.

We have also participated in the inquiries currently being held by the Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), both of which are examining the Government’s proposals. We highlighted the problems associated with introducing draconian measures which undermine human rights and civil liberties and the impact this may have on the “war on terrorism”. These include extending detention time and longer sentences. Many of the measures have been proposed before. The fact that two Parliamentary Committees are holding their own inquiries into the issue is a promising sign that the interaction between human rights and counter-terrorism has moved a little further up the agenda.

INQUIRIES ACT 2005

BIRW has produced an informed critique of the Inquiries Act 2005, which is available on our website and we continue to criticise it at every available opportunity. In 2007, this has included voicing our concerns direct to Paul Goggins MP of the Northern Ireland Office, and including the critique within submissions to the UN Human Rights Committee, to the UN Special Representative on the situation of Human Rights Defenders, to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and to the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review Mechanism.

It is perhaps testimony to our campaign that the Inquiries Act has been very little used and has been criticised by a number of prominent judges, including Lord Saville who chaired the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. These judges dislike the Act greatly because it impinges on their independence. It has also been criticised by the JCHR. Ironically, apart from the Billy Wright and Robert Hamill Inquiries, we can only find three examples of the Act being used: an outbreak of food-poisoning in Wales; an explosion at a plastics factory in Glasgow; and safety at Derry City airport. None of these inquiries was presided over by a judge. There have been a number of issues where there has been very considerable public concern and calls for public inquiries, such as the deaths of young soldiers at Deepcut barracks and the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes. Interestingly, many of these campaigns say explicitly that an inquiry under the Inquiries Act would not be acceptable. It is our feeling that it will take some non-Northern Ireland and probably non-terrorism related tragedy that is crying out for an independent public inquiry to fully expose the lack of any proper inquiry mechanism in English law.

POLICING IN NORTHERN IRELAND

holding the Chief Constable to account

In January, we responded to what we felt was a half-hearted consultation process by the Northern Ireland Policing Board on the performance of its duty to hold the Chief Constable to account. The truth is that no-one knows how well the Board is performing. Although the Policing Board is considerably more transparent and accountable than the old Police Authority, in that it holds its meetings in public and publishes its minutes, in reality any holding of the Chief Constable to account takes place behind closed doors. Whenever a controversial issue arises in which there is genuine public interest, the Policing Board goes into closed session and its members, even if they are democratically elected political representatives in the outside world, are enjoined to remain silent about what was said. Further, the minutes of these closed sessions are not made public. When we asked for more information about this crucial role, the Board referred us to the minutes of its meetings. We await the outcome of the consultation with interest.

DISTRICT POLICING PARTNERSHIPS

BIRW commented on the Policing Board's consultation on the future of District Policing Partnerships in February. BIRW was broadly supportive of the majority of measures the Policing Board suggested. However, as with many consultation documents, the proposals lacked detail, which prevented a solid exploration of the issues under consideration. Of particular concern to BIRW was the acknowledgement that the work of the DPPs, like the Policing Board and the PSNI itself, has been hindered by intimidation of members by both sides of the community and the politicisation of policing. We encouraged the Policing Board to equality screen this draft policy as any change to DPPs will have an impact on those groups identified in the legislation as being at greatest risk of discrimination.

chief constable seeks to deploy tasers

Sir Hugh Orde, the Chief Constable of the PSNI, has decided to deploy tasers (electric stun guns) in Northern Ireland. We have written to the Policing Board asking them to prevent him from doing so. We have also written to the Equality Commission pointing out that the PSNI has failed to carry out an equality impact assessment, even though there is evidence that tasers can cause disproportionate harm to children, pregnant women, and people with certain disabilities. The PSNI have since agreed to conduct an assessment, although this is being conducted in tandem with a trial deployment of tasers, and we have voiced our concerns about this to the Policing Board. BIRW is fundamentally opposed to the deployment of tasers because the infliction of pain is the means of incapacitating people, rather than a side effect of their use, and because the person using the taser cannot control the strength of the 50,000 volt electric shock that it delivers. As the recent death in Vancouver airport shows, tasers are used too often against unarmed people, and can be lethal.

ENGAGEMENT WITH policing board’s human rights advisers

In April, BIRW commented on the Annual Human Rights Report produced by the Policing Board’s Human Rights Advisers. Undoubtedly, monitoring by the Human Rights Advisers goes some way towards addressing key human rights issues, but until a stronger commitment is be made by the PSNI itself, the impact of such work is limited. BIRW shared the concerns of the Advisers that the review of all PSNI policies has been the subject of delays and as such, there may be PSNI policies which are not compliant with the Human Rights Act. We also highlighted our concerns about changes to the PSNI’s consultation process where the new policy of posting consultations on the PSNI’s website has passed the onus for initiating consultation from the PSNI to the NGOs.

Later in the year, we met with Keir Starmer QC, one of the Human Rights Advisers, to discuss a number of issues. These included the use of “less lethal” force, the bugging of solicitors, the use of child informers, and the security vetting of PSNI personnel.

PSNI OFFICER PROMOTION AND RECRUITMENT PROCESSES

BIRW participated in the PSNI’s consultation of their Equality Impact Assessment of the officer promotion process. In our submission, we highlighted the importance of supporting officers from the disadvantaged groups listed under section 75 of the Equality Act and advocated the creation of initiatives such as building mentoring relationships between senior officers and recruits.

BIRW also contributed to an equality impact assessment on the recruitment of police officers. We have concerns that the PSNI is still not fully representative of the community it serves, in particular with regard to Catholic, female and ethnic minority officers. The PSNI needs to take firmer action to address this issue. We also have concerns that the PSNI is using Catholic recruits from outside Northern Ireland in order to fulfil their quota.

POLICE CODE OF ETHICS

Throughout 2007, BIRW participated in the ongoing consultation on changes to the PSNI’s Code of Ethics. The PSNI has incorporated some positive changes to the Code including the need to use non-violent methods of control on detainees rather than resorting to force. However, there is still room for improvement, for example in regard to issues like membership of bodies such as the Orange Order. Later in the year, we participated in the final round of consultations by the PSNI on their revised Code.

DEALING WITH THE PAST

SUBMISSION TO CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON THE PAST

BIRW has made a comprehensive submission to the UK government Consultative Group on the Past, which is looking at how the people of Northern Ireland can move forward into a shared future without being overshadowed by the legacy of the conflict. A copy of our submission is available on our website. Despite many reservations about the manner in which the consultation has been conducted, BIRW strongly endorses the notion that Northern Ireland is badly in need of a shared future that is not over-shadowed by its past, provided that future is based on respect for everyone’s human rights and on equality. One of the greatest obstacles to moving forward into a better future is the enormous human rights deficit which has been allowed to develop in Northern Ireland. Many of the proposals we make in our submission stem from, and are intended to suggest remedies for, the lack of respect for human rights which has permeated Northern Ireland at many levels for far too long. We have also argued that the past cannot be dealt with properly by attempting to sweep it under the carpet. Mechanisms must be found to provide effective mechanisms for acknowledging and investigating the truth about what really happened during the conflict, not in order to dwell on the past, but in order to ensure that it can never be repeated.

INTERNATIONAL ADVOCACY

This year we have continued to complement our domestic policy work with international advocacy, engaging with relevant international bodies and organisations to ensure our concerns remain firmly on their agenda. This has included:

BRIEFING FOR UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION

In June, we met with Asma Jahangir, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, during her formal mission to the UK. BIRW raised a number of issues with her, including discrimination against Catholics in Northern Ireland in relation to employment, promotion and retention. We also discussed the position of Catholics within the PSNI, sectarian crime, and the problems raised for her mandate in relation to the measures taken to combat terrorism. In her statement summarising her visit, Ms Jahangir voiced concerns that there remain several contentious issues in Northern Ireland which must be addressed, including religious inequalities in the labour market, housing, education, policing and criminal justice agencies.

SUBMISSION ON UK TO UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE

In July 2008, the UN Human Rights Committee will conduct a full examination of the UK’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. BIRW made detailed submissions regarding the UK’s current compliance with the Covenant, and suggested a number of questions which we feel the Human Rights Committee should raise with the UK Government. A full copy of the submissions can be found on our website.

SUBMISSIONS TO UN SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE ON HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS

BIRW has taken up the case of Mark Thompson, the Director of Relatives for Justice (RFJ), with the UN Special Representative on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, Hina Jilani. In April, he was one of over a hundred people who was visited by the police and told that his life was under threat from loyalists, presumed to be the UVF. Two members of a loyalist flute band, one of whom was a civilian employee with access to police computers, were arrested in relation to passing information to the UVF and possession of information useful to terrorists. RFJ has been working with victims of collusion between the security forces and the UVF, as well as other victims of collusion across the communities. We also raised our concerns with the PSNI Chief Constable, and the International Monitoring Commission, which monitors the ceasefires.

Later in the year, Ms Jilani came to London, and we sent her a report updating her on the situation in relation to inquiries into the deaths of two human rights lawyers, Patrick Finucane and Rosemary Nelson, in whose cases she has taken a long-term interest. We also updated her on the Inquiries Act 2005, and on the problems being encountered by the Billy Wright Inquiry and the Robert Hamill Inquiry, both of which have been converted to inquiries under the Act.

SUBMISSION TO THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL'S UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW MECHANISM

BIRW have made a submission to the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review Mechanism concerning the UK. This mechanism is very new, having been established in June 2007. It undertakes a periodic review of the fulfilment by each state of its human rights obligations and commitments, based on objective and reliable information. The mechanism itself is supposed to be co-operative, based on an interactive dialogue, with the full involvement of the country concerned. The UK is to be considered within the first session, between 7 and 18 April 2008. NGOs are encouraged to participate in the review, and are invited to make submissions, although they are limited to five pages. Nevertheless, BIRW managed to raise a number of issues, including concerns about the UK’s counter terror legislation and the Inquiries Act 2005, information about the Bill of Rights for both Northern Ireland and Britain, and the deployment of plastic bullets and tasers. The full submission can be found on our website.

Committee OF MINISTERS STILL ON THE CASE OF EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATIONS

The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers continues to monitor the cases of McKerr, Jordan, Kelly & Ors, Shanaghan, McShane, and Finucane and the UK’s compliance with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to an effective investigation where there has been a violation of the right to life. In June, it passed an interim resolution, urging the United Kingdom to “achieve concrete and visible progress” in the investigations into these cases and decided to continue to monitor the UK’s implementation of its judgments at regular meetings until they are resolved. We have made repeated submissions to the Committee of Ministers regarding the investigation of these cases and, in November, we sent a further update which, in particular, raised our concerns over the failure to establish an enquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane, and the inadequacies of the Inquiries Act 2005.

BILL OF RIGHTS

BILL OF RIGHTS FORUM ESTABLISHED

There has been some encouraging, albeit somewhat delayed, advancement in relation to the Bill of Rights in 2007. The St Andrews Agreement committed the British and Irish governments to establishing a “Forum on a Bill of Rights” and to convening its inaugural meeting in December 2006. Although the political parties did not sign up to the Agreement by the 10 November 2006 deadline, the two governments continued with the implementation process of the Agreement. The work on the Bill of Rights also went ahead and the Bill of Rights Forum was established and met for the first time in December 2006. It is composed of 28 members in total: 14 from the main political parties (3 each dup, sdlp, sf, uup, and 2 from the Alliance Party) and 14 from civil society. Of the civil society representatives, most NGOs and the trade unions are also members of the Human Rights Consortium. All the key sectors, including women, young people, churches, ethnic minorities, and sexual orientation, are represented. In March 2007, the Forum appointed Chris Sidoti, a human rights lawyer, activist and teacher, as Chair. The Forum has also agreed terms of reference.

The Forum’s work began in earnest in April 2007 and now meets on a monthly basis. It has established seven working groups on particular aspects of the Bill of Rights, which focus on children and young people, women, criminal justice and victims, economic and social rights, culture and identity and language, civil and political rights, and the preamble, enforcement and implementation. Every working group has a mix of politicians and civil society and draws on international human rights law and good international practice. There are four part-time outreach workers who started work in mid-October 2007. The deadline by which the Forum must submit its recommendations to the NIHRC and UK Government has again been extended, and is now 31 March 2008.

BIRW CONCERNS OVER DRAFTING PROCESS

Although we are encouraged by these developments, we believe that the drafting process itself is as important as the content of the draft Bill, and in this respect there are a number of issues which remain worryingly unclear. Firstly, we are concerned about the extent to which the Forum will engage in outreach. In particular, funding has only been made available for the four part-time outreach workers for the period mid-October 2007 to 31 March 2008. Civil society representatives are very keen on this, whilst the Chair is worried that the timetable is too short, resources are too limited and political parties diverge on this issue. There is also some doubt over the extent to which the government is influencing the debate behind the scenes, in terms of a tight timetable and limited resources, and what openness there will be to the proposals that eventually come forward. Finally, we are uncertain how people will really discuss the most difficult issues, such as parades, abortion and enforcement.

The answers to all these issues are likely to become apparent after 31 March 2008, when the Forum submits its recommendations. Another issue which has yet to be resolved is the extent to which the NIHRC’s advice to the government concerning the draft Bill of Rights will reflect the work of the Forum.

Over the past year, we have continued to voice our concerns to the UK government, through dialogue with the office of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and sought the investigation of these issues by the UN, through both submissions to the UN Human Rights Committee and to the UN Human Rights Council’s new Universal Periodic Review mechanism. In addition, we have monitored the situation very closely, and liaise frequently with our colleagues at the NIHRC and at CAJ, and through them the Human Rights Consortium, thus indirectly influencing the political representatives on the Forum, and doing our utmost to ensure the drafting process is as effective as possible.

PROFESSOR KADER ASMAL MP VISITS LONDON

In September 2007, we hosted a highly successful event in London, at which our Sponsor, Professor Kader Asmal MP, gave an inspirational speech on “Designing a Bill of Rights for a Diverse Society”, before an audience comprising MPs, members of the House of Lords, academics and lawyers. The seminar was followed by a reception, hosted by Atlantic Philanthropies, for which we are very grateful. Professor Asmal’s speech drew on his experience of both South Africa, where he was a prominent architect of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and Northern Ireland. His speech has been made available on our website in order to inform others and will also be published very shortly in the European Human Rights Law Review. At our suggestion, Professor Asmal then spent a further three days in Belfast, where he spoke at a conference organised by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Consortium, also attended by BIRW.

A british bill of rights?

BIRW has made a submission to the JCHR on the question of whether there is a need for a British Bill of Rights. We argued that, with the Northern Ireland Bill of Rights process so far advanced, and with so many lessons available from Northern Ireland, embarking on a British Bill of Rights would be premature when the outcome of the Northern Ireland process is so close. Our submission is available under the ‘Bill of Rights’ section of our website.

COURT OBSERVATIONS

house of lords JUDGMENT IN right to life cases

The House of Lords sat for six days this month to consider the cases of Hurst, Jordan and McCaughey, which we observed. The key issues at stake were whether deaths prior to the coming into force of the Human Rights Act were eligible for an inquest under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to life and confers the right to an effective investigation, and then, what the nature of that inquest should be. The case robustly explored the Human Rights Act 1998, which gives effect to Convention rights in domestic law, and common law principles where the state was involved in a death, as well as the nature of the coronial system in England and Northern Ireland.

The House of Lords, in a majority decision, departed from the earlier ruling of the Court of Appeal, and followed the 2004 decision in McKerr, which held that that the European Convention on Human Rights had not been incorporated into domestic law, and that the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force on 2 October 2000, merely gave effect to Convention rights in domestic law. Therefore, victims of incidents which occurred before that date cannot vindicate their Convention rights before the domestic courts. Furthermore, claims arising from the procedural rights stemming from Article 2, the right to an effective investigation, could not engage Human Rights Act protection if the death happened before that date, even if the claims arose after October 2000.

BIRW made a third party intervention in McKerr, and argued, among other things, that the approach finally adopted by the court would create an undesirable twin-track system whereby deaths occurring before October 2000 would be treated differently from those arising after the Human Rights Act came into force. Unfortunately, due the decision in Hurst, that is the position in which we now find ourselves. Pre-Human Rights Act inquests can only determine “by what means” a person met his or her death, while post-Act inquests can consider “in what circumstances” the death came about. The only slight ray of light on the horizon is the decision in McCaughey, decided on the same day, which held that where the death occurred prior to the Human Rights Act, the police must disclose all relevant material to the coroner, unless a Public Interest Immunity Certificate applies.

bugging case

In June, we went to Belfast to observe the judicial review in In re Coleman, Avery, Walsh, McElkerney and Mulhern. Applicants Coleman, Avery and Walsh sought a declaration from the PSNI that their consultations with their lawyers, whilst in custody at the Serious Crimes Suite in Antrim Police Station, had not been the subject of covert surveillance. The case of McElkerney applied to surveillance of such consultations in prison, whilst in the case of Mulhern, the issue was an assurance that a medical consultation by an independent medical professional, carried out in custody, would not be the subject of covert surveillance. The case raised fundamental questions about the principle of legally privileged information and the protections afforded such information. The hearing considered a range of issues, including whether the legislation, which authorised covert surveillance to take place, included an appropriate threshold test for when surveillance should be used; and how the rights of a suspect could be protected when covert surveillance was employed. The judgment was issued in late November 2007. The Court found that the monitoring of such conversations will be unlawful, unless it is authorised by an independent person. The Lord Chief Justice said “the need for a legal adviser and his client to be secure in the knowledge that what passes between them is and will remain confidential is both obvious and incontestable".

PARADES COMMISSION UNDER SCRUTINY

In November, BIRW observed the case of In re Duffy at the House of Lords. The case concerned the 2005 appointment of two prominent members of the Orange Order to the Parades Commission, and whether it was possible for them to fulfil their functions independently and impartially. A full report on the hearing will be available shortly on our website. Judgment was reserved.

Christy walsh wins right to third appeal

BIRW observed the case of Christy Walsh, who was given leave to allow the submission of specific evidence to have his conviction for possession of an explosive device overturned. BIRW has been helping Christy Walsh since the early 1990s and have been appalled by the way he has fallen through every safety met within the criminal justice system. We were delighted that on this occasion the system has delivered on this aspect of his fight for justice. We note that this is not the end of the road and he still has some distance to go, and we will continue to monitor progress next year.

LEARNING FROM THE LESSONS OF NORTHERN IRELAND

Over the past year, BIRW has continued to apply lessons learnt from its experience of Northern Ireland to the current counter-terror measures in England and Wales. In this respect, it has brought invaluable insight to the present debate. In addition to the policy submissions detailed earlier, this work has included the following:

BIRW INTERVENES IN AL SKEINi CASE

BIRW joined with the AIRE Centre, Amnesty International, the Association for the Prevention of Torture, the Bar Human Rights Committee, Interights, Justice, The Law Society of England and Wales, Liberty, and the Redress Trust to make a third party intervention in the House of Lords in the case of R (Al Skeini and others) v Secretary of State for Defence. The case concerns the death of six Iraqi civilians in Basra, Iraq. Five of these six civilians were shot and fatally wounded by members of UK armed forces in the course of “patrol” operations. Baha Mousa, the sixth victim, died after he was tortured over a period of 36 hours whilst detained by British troops. This case tests the very important principle of whether the British army is bound by the European Convention of Human Rights, and therefore the UK Human Rights Act, when outside the jurisdiction of the Council of Europe.

The House of Lords delivered its long-awaited decision in June, finding that the family of Baha Mousa was entitled to an independent, impartial and thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death. However, the Law Lords did not consider that the death of the other five civilians could be considered to fall within the European Convention or the Human Rights Act, and therefore no investigations into their deaths will take place.

JCHR INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF TORTURE BY TROOPS IN IRAQ

Following this decision, the JCHR announced its intention to conduct an inquiry into allegations of torture and inhuman treatment carried out by British troops in Iraq. In response to a call for evidence, and in consultation with the other interveners, BIRW submitted the third party intervention in the Al Skeini case to the JCHR, which sets out our concerns about the practices of states during the occupation of foreign territory and the need to hold such states to the highest standards of accountability for such violations of fundamental human rights.

THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION IN HOUSE OF LORDS AL RAWI CASE

In August, BIRW, The AIRE Centre, Fair Trials Abroad and Redress were granted leave to intervene in the case of Al Rawi & Others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Office & Secretary of State for Home Department. The case concerned the continued detention of two UK residents by the US authorities at Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba, who had been refused state assistance to secure their release and return to the UK. The case had potentially huge ramifications both for those still detained in Guantanamo and, more generally, regarding the obligation on states to take positive steps to prevent torture. BIRW’s interest in this case stems from our knowledge of internment without trial and ill-treatment in custody in Northern Ireland.

Shortly after our application to intervene was granted, in a welcome development, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary decided to request the release and return to the UK of a number of detainees, including the two concerned. The parties therefore decided to withdraw their legal challenge. BIRW welcomed this eminently sensible development.

SHOOT-TO-KILL POLICY: LEARNING FROM THE LESSONS OF NORTHERN IRELAND

In October, BIRW took part in a filmed debate organised by the Islamic Human Rights Commission and Press TV regarding the UK’s shoot-to-kill policy. The programme also featured several criminal lawyers and advocates. Debate centred around the UK security forces’ current use of a shoot-to-kill policy, including the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, whilst BIRW provided information about the use of the policy in Northern Ireland, emphasising the importance of learning lessons from those experiences. Although the current UK anti-terror situation differs in some respects from that in Northern Ireland, there are clear parallels to be drawn.

ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINiSTRATION

BIRW EVALUATION

BIRW have received the report of the independent evaluation of our work carried out by Steven Burkeman and Alison Harker. The evaluators described BIRW as “an outstanding success story”, and said that even those whom we criticise recognised the importance of our role. The report contains many recommendations for improvements for us to consider, and we will be discussing them and drawing up a strategic plan in February next year. We are grateful to Alison and Steven for all their work.

TRAINING AND CONFERENCES

BIRW staff have attended a number of seminars, conferences and workshops, covering a range of issues relevant to our work. This has included a lecture on holding international organisations and their members to account, a presentation and discussion on truth commissions, a conference entitled “Rights and Righteousness, Religious Pluralism and Human Rights”, a seminar on the National Preventive Mechanism under the Optional Protocol to the UN Torture Convention, several fundraising workshops, IT training and a course on dealing with the media.

We have also delivered a number of training seminars to a variety of audiences, covering topics such as dealing with the past, a session for students on lobbying, NGO administration and funding, and a talk to human rights law students on BIRW’s work.

HUMAN WRONGS, HUMAN RIGHTS

BIRW has received a grant from Awards for All Northern Ireland, part of the National Lottery Fund, to republish our book Human Wrongs, Human Rights, A guide to the human rights machinery of the United Nations. We are currently rewriting the guide and then will be distributing it, in CD-Rom form and available on the website, to all academic institutions in Northern Ireland next year. We are very grateful indeed to Awards for All for their support. If you would like a copy of the guide, please email birw@birw.org or write to us and we will be pleased to provide one.

UPDATE YOUR CONTACT DETAILS

We are currently updating all our contact information and creating a centralised database to improve and ease our administration. If your details have changed recently, or you are not already on our mailing list but would like to receive information from us, please email birw@birw.org or write to us with details of your name, address, telephone number and email address and we will include you within our database. We will only use information we hold about you in line with the D

Annual Report 2007

INQUIRIES