human rights standards have acknowledged the severe difficulties faced by the government in dealing with paramilitary violence from both Loyalist and Republican groups in Northern Ireland, and violence which is responsible for over 90 percent of the deaths in the Northern Ireland conflict both with members of the security forces and with citizens who are not tied up in any way with the activities of the State.

Nevertheless, those international human rights bodies have acknowledged that there are limitations which must be placed on any democratic State in dealing with conflicts or threats to the safety and security of its citizens no matter how aggrieved. And sadly, the United Kingdom has consistently failed to conform to those standards in many aspects of its dealing with the conflict in Northern Ireland.

For example, in the forum of the European Convention on Human Rights, in 1978, the United Kingdom was found to breach the guarantees against inhuman and degrading treatment in relation to its treatment of detainees in police stations and detention centers in Northern Ireland.

In 1995, in the McCann case, resulting from shooting of three people alleged to be planting a bomb in Gibraltar, the United Kingdom was found to have violated the protection against the right to life, one of the most fundamental guarantees in international human rights standards.

In 1989, in the Brogan case the European Convention of Human Rights found a violation of the right to liberty when detainees were detained for more than 7 days without judicial supervision for questioning, and similarly in the Fox, Campbell and Hartley case in 1990, a violation was found of the right to liberty when inadequate information was given to people arrested as to what they were suspected of.

Finally, in the Murray case in the European Convention context in 1996, the violation of the right to fair trial was found, particularly in the drawing of inferences from defendants refusal to testify and the failure to grant them immediate access to legal representations after their arrest.

Both the United Nations Committee on Torture in 1991 and 1995 and the European Committee on the Prevention of Torture in 1995 have expressed strong concern that the circumstances for the interrogation of those suspected of terrorist offenses in Northern Ireland create a significant risk of the mistreatment of suspects. It is, of course, particularly disturbing that in 1995 we are finding the same concerns expressed about the interrogation of suspects which animated the 1978 European Court decision in the Ireland versus United Kingdom case. That problem has remained permanent in Northern Ireland.

Finally, in this international context it is worth mentioning that the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 1995 expressed concern that permitting courts to draw inferences from the silence of those charged with offenses in Northern Ireland, coupled with failure to give them immediate access to their lawyers, created a risk that their right to fair trial would not be protected.

As I said, these are significant findings in areas of basic human rights protections. Moreover, as I said, these are findings made by

international tribunals and monitoring bodies that fully acknowledge the difficulties of the circumstances in Northern Ireland and the difficulties caused by political violence there.

If a common theme can be discerned in these cases, it is the failure of the State to provide adequate, effective and independent means for reviewing the conduct of law enforcement authorities, especially where they have been granted increased powers. The consistent theme of law enforcement policies in Northern Ireland in the current phase of the conflict has been that a combination of violence and intimidation, plus the need for quick results in serious cases, is thought to make law enforcement particularly difficult where law enforcement is based, as it normally is, on the cooperation of the citizenry.

And State measures such as non-jury courts, lengthy periods of detention of questioning, and the drawing of inferences from silence, which reduce reliance on the cooperation of the public, give increased powers to police and prosecution.

But the constant danger with these measures is that they risk sections of the pubic increasingly seeing law enforcement as something that is done to them rather than for them; hence, fueling the lack of confidence in the law enforcement agencies and turning the lack of public support on which policies are predicated into a selffulfilling prophecy. Such suspicions that increased law enforcement powers are merely a cover for arbitrary action are fueled when the mechanisms do not appear to exist to render law enforcement transparent and accountable.

The continuing controversy of the Bloody Sunday shootings in 1972 is perhaps the most significant example of why the lack of adequate scrutiny mechanisms can render public distrust and suspicion of law enforcement. Hence, from human rights perspective it seems to me there is need for changes which would render law enforcement more transparent and accountable, something which, in turn, should ensure compliance with international human rights standards.

A fully independent system for the investigation of complaints against the police, the introduction of video and audio taping of all police interrogations in Northern Ireland, judicial review of any extensions of detention of suspects, and indeed the lack of a need for detention for suspects beyond the period of say 48 hours, and qualified access of lawyers to their clients, and better procedures at inquests would all be high on the list of matters necessary to ensure the protection of human rights in Northern Ireland.

All of these, it seems to me, can be achieved without rendering law enforcement authorities incapable of dealing with genuine examples of crime and politically motivated crime. The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights is likely to be initiated by the present government. It seems to me this is indeed a very welcome stand. But this must be supported by giving adequate powers to an independent human rights commission, whether a revamped Standing Advisory Commission of Human Rights or a new commission, to fully investigate the protection of human rights, and to initiate litigation where it feels these rights have not been given effect to.

I think it is true to say one must acknowledge that while human rights violations are at the core of Northern Ireland's problems, better protection of human rights alone would not solve Northern Ireland's problems. It is a deep political conflict that needs to be addressed by political steps. And it is also true to say that human rights may flourish better in time of peace.

Moreover, it seems to me that measures to enhance the protection of human rights, particularly to guarantee these core protections of human rights of life, liberty and a fair trial, seem to me essential to contribute to an atmosphere of public trust. They are things that are right in themselves. And by generating that better public trust confidence and the sense of public security they may help to contribute to an environment in which an overall settlement is more likely to be achieved.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Livingstone appears in the appendix.]

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Livingstone, for that very fine statement, and for your very valuable recommendations.

We have been joined on the panel by Congresswoman Ileana RosLehtinen who is the chairwoman of the International Economic Policy and Trade Subcommittee.

Ileana, do you want to say a word or two?

And also by my good friend from New York, Eliot Engel.
Eliot, would you like to say a few words?

Mr. ENGEL. Well, I just want to say, first of all, it's good to be back in the Committee again, and I just want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for conducting this hearing. As you know, I have, since the beginning of my tenure in Congress, been very concerned about the human rights abuses in the north of Ireland, and I look forward to listening to the testimony.

And, you, of course, as chairman, have been preeminent in this Congress about human rights abuses, not only in Ireland, but all over the world, and I really want to commend you and publicly compliment you for the work that you do. I think of all the work we do in Congress one of the best things that we can ensure is to let people all over the world know that Members of Congress and the United States are watching, and doing more than watching; that we will not tolerate or stand for the kinds of human rights abuses that we have seen in Ireland for so many years. I think it is very, very important for us to hold these kinds of hearings.

So I again commend you for the work that you have done, and I look forward to listening to the testimony. Hopefully, we can highlight some of the problems, and encourage the Administration and Congress to take a more active position in concert to end these human rights abuses in the north of Ireland.

Thank you.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Engel, thank you. And thank you for coming. As you pointed out, you are not a member of the Committee but because of your deep and abiding interest made time in your schedule to join us at this hearing. So I do thank you for that.

I would like to ask our final witness if she would present her testimony, Maryam Elahi from Amnesty International.

STATEMENT OF MARYAM ELAHI, ADVOCACY DIRECTOR, MIDDLE EAST AND EUROPE, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

MS. ELAHI. Congressman Smith, I would like to take the opportunity like my colleagues before me to thank you for holding these hearings, and to thank Chairman Gilman and other members of this panel, and Congressman Engel, for the support you have had in the leadership on this issue, and on other human rights issues. We welcome this opportunity to testify before this subcommittee on the human rights situation in Northern Ireland and in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Chairman, I request that my written testimony be submitted into the record, together with two Amnesty circulars on the case of Roisin McAliskey and the special security units, and the 1997 Amnesty International Annual Report entry on the United Kingdom. Mr. SMITH. Without objection all of that material will be made a part of the record.

Ms. ELAHI. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, in its work on Northern Ireland over many years Amnesty International has identified laws, procedures and practices of law enforcement officials which have led to violations of the internationally recognized right to life, to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, to fair trials, and to freedom of expression and assembly. In particular, Amnesty International has been seriously concerned about the British Government's failure to investigate independently and fully serious allegations of human rights violations, to make public the results of internal investigations, and to bring the perpetrators of human rights violations to justice.

Given the large number of human rights violations perpetrated in Northern Ireland, there is a particular need for the new government, the new British Government, that is, to review a number of issues, including policing and emergency legislation provisions, with a view to increasing the protection of human rights in Northern Ireland. The protection of human rights and the creation of a human rights culture are without a doubt central to lasting peace. Mr. Chairman, we believe that the new government has an opportunity to make significant moves for the protection of human rights throughout the United Kingdom, and we welcome the commitments expressed in initial government statements to emphasize issues of fairness and justice in Northern Ireland.

In my written testimony submitted for the record I have focused on Amnesty International's wide range of concerns about human rights violations in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. In the short time available to me today, I would like to touch upon our concerns in three particular areas.

First, unfair trials in Diplock Courts, and focus on the Casement Park case; second, to address special security units in the United Kingdom and the treatment of Category A prisoners; in that particular case to focus on Roisin McAliskey's treatment; and, third, alleged extrajudicial killings as illustrated by the case of Diarmuid O'Neill.

Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, I would like to note for the record that we too are baffled by the absence of a representative from the State Department. This year's State Department report on the

42-396 97-2

human rights situation in the United Kingdom was even-handed and strong in its language, and it is unfortunate that Assistant Secretary Shattuck is not here to discuss what steps the Administration is prepared to take to raise these issues of mutual concern with the British Government. We do hope that his absence merely reflects a scheduling conflict and not a determination by the Administration to evade public criticism of one of its closest allies when they do wrong.

I would like to first address our concerns about extrajudicial killings. We have called on the British Government to carry out an independent inquiry into all alleged extrajudicial killings. Such an inquiry should examine the legislation governing the use of lethal force, the procedures used to investigate such killings, the lack of accountability of the security forces and the police, and the severely restricted nature of the inquest procedure which is prevented through legislation from carrying out the proper and public inquiry into the full circumstances of a disputed killing. We ask that the result of such an inquiry be made available to the public.

Our concerns about such killings are highlighted by a recent case in September of last year in which lethal force was applied by armed police carrying out a planned raid on a house in London in the early morning, resulting in the death of Diarmuid O'Neill and the arrest of two others.

Diarmuid O'Neill was apparently shot six times by two officers from Scotland Yard. Initial statements by the police tried to justify the death of Mr. O'Neill by stating that he was killed during a shootout between the police and the arrested suspects. However, subsequent reports have confirmed that Diarmuid O'Neill and the other suspects were unarmed. The British Government needs to account for the initial misleading statement and its justification for killing an unarmed man.

We also believe that there should be an investigation into the treatment received by Diarmuid O'Neill in the wake of the shooting. The photos of smeared blood on the front steps of the house would seem to indicate that Diarmuid O'Neill was dragged seriously wounded down the steps to the pavement rather than being treated where he lay or removed on a stretcher.

Another aspect of this case which needs clarification is the reported use of CS gas during the operation. British officers should be asked why CS gas was used and what effect that amount of CS gas used would have had on Mr. O'Neill's reasoning.

I should mention that a police investigation was indeed carried out into this incident by senior officers of the Metropolitan Police Service, the very same police force that was involved in the incident. And the results of this investigation, if indeed it is now finished, have yet to be made public.

The second concern that I would like to touch upon in this hearing is that of special security units or SSUs. Amnesty International has urged that the British Government carry out a review of the security measures which have been implemented within the British prison regime in order to ensure that such measures do not amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners. We believe that the special security units in which the exceptional escape risk Category A prisoners are held does constitute cruel, inhuman or