18 The Mc Canns own a butcher's shop on Belfast's Falls Road and British soldiers regularly shout obscene remarks in at the parents. Dan's brother almost on a daily basis is stopped and abused by British soldiers while escorting his child to school. But in the days leading up to the funeral the families were visited by an RUC officer who threatened us with dire consequences if we fulfilled the wishes of our loved ones to be buried as members of the IRA. The remains of Mairéad, Sean and Dan were flown from Gibraltar to Dublin and from there they were to be brought by road to Belfast. From the moment we crossed the border into N. Ireland the remains were literally kidnapped by the RUC. As we followed behind the RUC jeeps, it was noticeable how they deliberately slowed down when we passed hostile crowds making us easy targets for missiles. When we reached the M1, some ten miles from Belfast, an RUC road-block prevented the relatives from following the cortege. The remains of the three were not brought to their homes until much later. After approximately 30 minutes, the relatives who were in three cars were allowed to proceed onto the motorway, while the other mourners were made to take another route. On the motorway, we were to be stopped by the RUC again and held for at least two hours, where many of the relatives were subject to considerable abuse. Two aunts had accompanied me to meet the remains in Dublin and they stated afterwards that this period, stuck on the M1 surrounded by hundreds of RUC men, was without doubt the most frightening experience of the aftermath, including the gun and grenade attack on the actual funeral. The actions of the RUC throughout this whole period underlined time and again how sectarian a force it is. It exposed the nonsense of the Dublin Government considering it a breakthrough when they got the assurance of the British authorities that RUC men would accompany the Ulster Defence Regiment, another sectarian body, when on patrol. Once the remains arrived home only the McCann's household was subject to intense harassment. Their home was literally surrounded back, front and side by British Army saracens. Only on the morning of the funeral did they withdraw. Quite unusual for the funeral of IRA members there was no British Army or RUC presence, despite the fact that the families had been threatened with a repeat of what happened at Lawrence Marley's funeral when the RUC saturated the area and had refused to allow the remains to leave the Marley home until the Irish Tricolour was removed from the coffin. Many believe that the absence of the police and the attack carried out by a grenade-wielding gunman in the cemetery was no coincidence. In this attack three mourners were murdered. The killer made his retreat towards the 19 motorway, which runs beside the cemetery. Parked on the motorway was a Ford Transit van, it seemed as though this was the killer's accomplices waiting to help make good his escape. When the killer was overpowered near the motorway, the van quickly left the scene. It was claimed later that this was an undercover RUC van. A number of questions arise, why didn't they intervene to halt the slaughter of mourners and how did the sectarian killer know that there would not be the usual police presence? Many believe that there was direct collusion between the so-called security forces and this murderer. The Inquest Five independent civil liberty organisations, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, Inquest, the National Council for Civil Liberties (London), the International League for Human Rights (New York) and Amnesty International - all of which had observers at the inquest - have criticised many aspects of the proceedings and have called for further inquiries into the killings in Gibraltar. The Amnesty International report stated that the inquest failed to answer "the fundamental issue... whether the fatal shootings were caused by what happened in the street, or whether the authorities planned in advance for the three to be shot dead".8 The inquiry by its very nature was not equipped to determine the truth. The British authorities, which might have had an interest in concealing aspects of the truth, had access prior to the inquest and during it to identities of witnesses, their statements or possible statements and were to some extent able, on grounds of availability, to dictate order of calling some witnesses. In contrast, our legal advisers had virtually no information except one ballistics report and a pathologist's report. Amnesty International in its report expressed its concern "that the legal representatives of the deceased's families were significantly and unfairly disadvantaged in comparison with the representatives for the other interested parties. The system is inherently weighted against the deceased families in preparing for cross-examination....He received the other forensic reports after the inquest began. He did not receive any of the witnesses' statements in advance, and even during the inquest he did not receive the statements made by security force personnel shortly after the incident. Without access to these statements in advance he was not able to cross-examine witnesses on the basis of what other witnesses, who testified at a later stage, said about the same incident. Thus, for example, he was not able to question the soldiers, who 8 United Kingdom: Investigating Lethal Shootings: The Gibraltar Inquest: Summary, p.iii. 20 testified in the second week of the inquest, about information which was presented in later weeks by police officers and civilian eyewitnesses. He also did not have witnesses' earlier statements to compare with their court testimony."9 Our lawyer faced numerous obstacles including for example the price of the court's daily transcripts being increased from 50p to £5 per page. Because the price was so prohibitive our lawyer could not avail of them - not so the British Ministry of Defence. The use by the British Government of Public Immunity Certificates prevented Mr. Mc Grory inquiring into many matters such as the planning of the operation, including the role of the "accessories before the fact". Finally there was the coroner's summing up of the evidence to the jury, in which he told them to avoid an open verdict. By doing this he unduly influenced these eleven men. This is especially true as after six hours of discussion the jury was deadlocked, divided 7 to 4 in favour of a "lawful killing" verdict. In normal circumstances an open verdict would have been a likely compromise, but this had been ruled out. The coroner then recalled the jury and gave them what seemed like an ultimatum to return a verdict. Two hours later they returned stating that they found, by 9 to 2 - the smallest majority allowed - the killings lawful. Despite all the disadvantages faced by our solicitor, Paddy McGrory, a man with lifelong experience as a lawyer, he firmly believed that the verdict went against the weight of the evidence, that it was a "perverse verdict". 7 Year Quest for Justice The United Kingdom Government insisted that the Gibraltar Inquest, despite its fundamental flaws, was the final word on these controversial killings. It consistently thwarted through the use of Public Interest Immunity Certificates any attempt by our families to have our case examined in the Northern Ireland courts. Eventually we brought our case first to the European Commission of Human Rights and then in February 1995 to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. On September 27th 1995 - seven years and six months after the actual killings - the court found the British Government guilty of having unlawfully killed our loved ones. It was a landmark decision, it being the first time that a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights was found guilty of breaching Article 2 of the Convention, the Right to Life. 9 21 The British Government said it would "ignore" the verdict. The Deputy Prime Minister went as far as to say that the Government would do the same again. Almost exactly a year after the verdict a young Irishman, Diarmuid O'Neill, was shot dead in very similar circumstances in a house in London. The stance of the British Government must be viewed as quite unacceptable. If Britain continues to refuse to operate within the constraints of law, both national and international; if it continues to refuse to meet its specific obligations with regard to the "right to life" under the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms then it must be ostracised, and no longer treated as being part of the democratic family of nations. Niall Farrell For Further Information: Niall Farrell, 22 Mac Bride Ave., Email: farrellj@hotel.rtc-galway.ie |