Eames Bradley versus U.N. Rule of Law

The publication of the report and recommendations of the Consultative Group on the past and the announcement by the Northern Ireland Office of a consultation on those recommendations has placed the issue of how we deal with the legacy of the conflict very firmly on the agenda.
The Eames-Bradley report did cause controversy with some of its recommendations, but it more importantly created widespread public debate and discussion after a number of years of relative quiet on how to move forward together as a community.

In our discussions with victims and survivors, what we have learned is that there is consensus that the legacy of the conflict must be dealt with to allow people to address their needs, whether those needs be acknowledgement, truth, information recovery, justice or accessing services appropriate to their needs. Whilst the recommendations themselves will be agreed, disagreed, deconstructed and rebuilt, what is fundamentally important is that the publication of the report in of itself represents the only opportunity we are likely to have in this generation to begin a process of restoration and healing.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has published a suite of documents entitled “Rule-of-law Tools for Post-Conflict States,” which draws upon experiences in other countries and communities emerging from conflict and examines international good practice in the areas of addressing its legacy, developing transitional justice processes and partnership between government and non-governmental organisations.

In order to inform public debate and to encourage those who wish to contribute to the consultation process to do so, we now provide this simple side-by-side comparison of the CGP recommendations and UN best practice guidelines. This is a brief document designed to act as a primer which will facilitate further debate and discussion and perhaps encourage further reading. A full bibliography of source material is also included. Please pass this along to anyone you feel appropriate. Copies of the document can also be downloaded from www.cvsni.org

In doing so, the Commission does not advocate that all of these international approaches are correct, nor that they would necessarily work in the Northern Ireland context, but they do provide an international benchmark. We believe it is important that we learn from the experiences of other communities in transition as we strive to build and secure peace in our own community.

The NIO consultation process will close on 2 October 2009. Copies of the consultation paper can be obtained from www.nio.gov.uk and I would encourage you to contribute your response.

Paving the way for a more cohesive way forward

For the past year, the Commission has been subject of judicial review proceedings regarding the appointment of Commissioners. That process has now concluded and our appointments have been upheld.

The Commission welcomes the result of the Judicial Review, but all four Commissioners also wish to be clear that they regret anyone felt it was necessary to seek such a review of their appointments, especially if it reflects an impression that there is no-one in the Commission to represent their interests.

We hope now that those who supported the judicial review will give us the opportunity to prove we are there for them, and to deliver on the commitment we made on the day our appointments were announced, on the 28th of January 2008, when we said:

“For our part, we acknowledge each other’s commitment to victims and survivors and after our initial meeting, we emphasise none of us intends to limit our involvement to any group or sector or geographical area.”

Since then, some 300 victims and survivors have approached us, seeking our help and advocacy. That door remains open to every victim and survivor of our conflict.

As we prepare for a new way of doing business, based upon the Commission, the Forum and a new Victims’ Service, we hope this ruling paves the way for a more cohesive way forward.