The United Nations international monitoring mechanisms can provide good tools for advocacy. The Committee for Administration of Justice (CAJ) in Northern Ireland used the United Nations Committee Against Torture (CAT). CAJ raised local human rights issues to the international level. Their goal was to improve the situation of people detained by ending ill-treatment. A range of tactics are needed to effectively use international mechanisms. CAJ used written submissions to the Committee, including lobbying efforts to the Committee in Geneva. CAJ monitored the impact of the CAT reports on the UK government. Over several Committee reports they tracked these government changes. This resulted in significant improvements for detainees and of the overall human rights situation on the ground.
Northern Ireland experienced violent political conflict since 1969. Three sets of protagonists were involved. The Irish Republican Army (IRA) and other republican groups which wanted Northern Ireland to unite with the rest of Ireland. Loyalist groups which wanted Northern Ireland to remain within the UK. And the state, as the third protagonist. Since the beginning of the conflict, the forces of the state were involved in human rights abuses. A key aspect of the human rights abuses involved allegations of ill-treatment of those in custody.
Increase in Allegations of Ill-Treatment
Allegations of physical ill-treatment which had receded in the mid 1980s began to increase later in the decade. Allegations of ill-treatment were reaching a crisis point by 1990. In the latter part of the 1980s, the state established a separate legal infrastructure. This was created to deal with those suspected of involvement in “terrorism”. This infrastructure included:
- special arrest powers
- special powers and places of detention
- special procedures for trial.
In response, CAJ provided a set of recommendations to the government. These recommendations sought to try and deal with the issue of abuse of detainees. The government response was to deny that any abuse was taking place. CAJ devised a response to this problem. They needed to effective in improving the situation of those arrested under the emergency laws and would trigger media coverage. It was difficult at that time to get media coverage of the issue. At the height of the conflict much of the media, particularly TV, was reluctant to criticize the state.
The goal was to improve the situation of those detained by ending the ill-treatment. They had a number of specific objectives. CAJ sought to get:
- lawyers immediate access to those arrested
- lawyers access to interviews
- the interviews recorded electronically
- an independent system of monitoring the interviews
- the periods of detention limited before charging or release
- the closing the detention centers; and
- the ordinary criminal law rather than the emergency law apply to those detained.
The Role of the United Nations Monitoring Mechanism
CAJ consulted lawyers who were members of their own executive committee and colleagues in international NGOs. They planned how they could utilize the Committee Against Torture (CAT). They began in 1991 when the UK had to appear before the Committee. Generally, the Committee runs on a three-year cycle. The UK was also examined in 1995 and 1998.
These examinations would have occurred with or without interventions from CAJ. The Committee does rely on NGOs and others to provide it with credible information. the Committee uses this information to base its questioning of the country involved. The recommendations from the Committee tend to set the parameters for the next examination. This is what makes such international mechanisms important for national level advocacy. It was important for the Committee to pay attention to the issues which CAJ wanted highlighted. Increasingly and by 1998, the Committee would start the session by asking for information on what the state had done to meet the concerns highlighted by the Committee on the previous occasion.
Impact of CAJ’s Advocacy
CAJ’s work with the Committee improved the situation of those arrested under the emergency laws in Northern Ireland immeasurably. It was clear from the late 1980s that physical ill-treatment was being authorized and orchestrated. Following CAJ’s recommendations and the Committee’s first report, while there were still allegations of physical ill-treatment, there were improvements. The allegations were not as widespread as earlier. The ill-treatment was not as bad as it had been. The courts began to be more interventionist in terms of excluding admission evidence.
It was also the case that actual ill-treatment would occur at the time of arrest and immediately subsequent to the arrest. This changed as opposed to being part of the interrogation process. The most remarkable and immediate achievement was the international embarrassment caused to the UK. Following the Committee’s criticism was the speedy end to coordinated physical ill-treatment in the holding centers. This treatment ceased between the first and second time the UK was examined before the Committee Against Torture.
A fragile peace remains following the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. The fight for human rights and the rule of law remains.
