we feel people can focus on and where something can be done to minimize the potential for conflict is to focus on the way in which the police police these kinds of confrontations. There is, it seems to us, a clear conflict of rights in this situation, and what is particularly important is that there is some kind of fair adjudication of that conflict of rights. Last summer we saw an appalling breakdown in the rule of law where the police effectively gave way to mob rule, leaving people feeling completely vulnerable. An internal police inquiry has itself been highly critical of the way in which the police policed last summer. It seems to us very important that there not be a repetition of the things we saw last summer, whereby peaceful protestors on the Garvarghy Road had plastic bullets fired at them, were physically assaulted and were verbally abused. Steps must be taken to ensure that there is no repetition of that kind of problem. It is very important to make sure that the massive use of plastic bullets, which we saw last summer, is not repeated this summer. The police in these situations have the potential either to aggravate or to bring some calm to the situation. Unfortunately, to date and very often their response has been to aggravate rather than to calm what is potentially a very explosive situation.

Mr. PAYNE. Just a last comment. You know, I do not know if you saw the news today that I think one of the British royalty saw a movie and there is a tremendous amount of discussion going on in England about the boys being taken to see the movie.

Anybody have any comment? Have you heard this new conversation that started yesterday?

Mr. KING. The movie was "The Devil's Own," and apparently Princess Di took her two kids to see it, and there is an uproar.

Mr. PAYNE. OK. Well, then, I just thought I would mention that. It certainly is going to be a matter of debate in the next few days there. It started yesterday, so you will probably hear more about it.

But thank you. I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Payne.

Just let me note for the record-and if you would like to say something, please do that Rick Lazio and John McHugh, both distinguished members from New York, have joined our panel.

Mr. MCHUGH. Mr. Chairman, if I might, as a member of the Full Committee, not a member of this subcommittee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to sit here and to hear these very distinguished panelists, and let me thank them for their very important work that they do. And I also want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the Subcommittee for taking up this very important cause. The issue of human rights in Northern Ireland is a longstanding topic of concern for many members of this House. I think it is especially of concern to several of us who have been trying to work with you and other members who will be here today in trying to find a positive role for this House, for this Congress and for this country.

I also want to commend you before the second panel beings on the obvious quality of the panelists. There is a gentleman who will be appearing before you who, among his many distinctions, lives in the 24th congressional district, which I have the privilege of rep

resenting. I am certainly looking forward to Mr. Wallace's testimony.

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, John.

Let me ask you this on behalf of Chairman Gilman. He wonders if each of you could indicate with a yes or no whether or not you support the McBride principles.

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. O'BRIEN. We have been particularly active in the whole field of religious discrimination. This is a very timely issue because the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights is later this week to publish a report on religious discrimination in Northern Ireland. We very much hope that that will lead to concrete improvements in the legislation. It is clear that the McBride campaign here in the United States has played a very important role in moving forward legislative provision in Northern Ireland. Religious discrimination remains a very serious problem, and it is important that people in the United States continue to focus on these kinds of issues.

Mr. POSNER. We also take a strong position in support of efforts to address religious discrimination. We have not taken a position on the McBride principles.

Ms. HALL. Human Rights Watch endorses the McBride principles.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE. I think the McBride principle is a helpful contribution to the debate on firm employment action, and the review that will be published shortly is a very important one, and I think will lead the way for improvements in legislation on fair employment, which remains such a central question in Northern Ireland. Ms. ELAHI. I do not have a position on it.

Mr. SMITH. I want to thank our very, very distinguished panelists for their expert testimony. There are many, many recommendations

Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. LAZIO. I wonder if I would just be permitted to ask a question. Thank you very much. I appreciate the courtesy and apologize for not getting here earlier. I was chairing my own hearing.

But I want to make just a brief comment if I could and ask one question. The comment simply has to do with, given my background in the law as a prosecutor, and Mr. King's background in the law as a prosecutor, I would suggest that both of us, if I could speak for him for a moment, are very highly offended by the pretrial detentions and the erosion in the confidence in the rule of law in the area. And that is compounded by the punishment beatings. Until those issues are forthrightly addressed, I cannot see how we can begin a good faith discussion of restoring a sense of justice into the area, and I do not know what we can do, but it seems as though we need to provide more leadership from here in order to put pressure to ensure that both things are changed.

And if I can just ask one question, and that has to do with punishment beatings. Do you believe that because it happens ordinarily, evidently in the same community of the people, the paramilitary organizations that organize these horrific acts, have the paramilitary groups become so accustomed to this type of horrific

activity and retribution that they cannot be brought on board with the peace process; that they are so accustomed now to a culture of violence that you cannot see that reconciliation process bringing them into a more democratic, humanitarian process?

Mr. POSNER. I think in any conflict where there is despair and there is a sense that the political process has broken down and where the rule of law has broken down, there are people on the extremes on all sides who are going to essentially take any action to achieve their ends.

The task for us, for those of us at this table, for those of you sitting up there, is to break that cycle of violence. And what we have talked about here, very usefully this morning is how we can advance a law-based agenda, a human rights agenda into a peace process which is now very much underway. Chairman Smith and all of you who are interested, and there is obviously a great deal of interest here, ought to be joining forces, to go see, and send a "Dear Colleague" letter to Senator Mitchell. You should say that this is the moment where these sorts of issues-pretrial detention, access to counsel, basic human rights protections-ought to be more on the agenda than they are in the peace process. This is the central message that I hope you take from this hearing because there are a range of issues that are not being discussed which are essential to going forward in a larger peace process.

Once you succeed in that I think it isolates the extremes and it makes it possible to go forward.

Mr. LAZIO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Lazio.

I want to thank this very fine panel for their expert testimony. We look forward to working with you in the near future.

I would like to welcome our second panel, and ask our panelists to come to the witness table. And just as a matter of administration, I will probably have to leave for about 15 minutes, and Mr. King has agreed to take the Chair. The House, as you may know, is debating Most Favored Nation status for the People's Republic of China, an issue that I have been very active in, and I am the next to the last speaker before we go to a vote. So I will be called when my time comes up, and will be out of the room for that period of time. But thank you, Congressman King, for agreeing to do that. Mr. KING. Sure. Mr. Chairman, at this stage could I ask unanimous consent to submit a statement for the record from Father Bryan Lennon on the firing of plastic bullets last year in Portadown?

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Father Bryan Lennon appears in the appendix.]

Mr. SMITH. I want to welcome our second panel beginning with Michael Finucane, who is the eldest son of Patrick Finucane, a Belfast solicitor who was murdered in front of his family, as we know, in 1989. In his work for the Pat Finucane Center, Michael has actively sought justice and a full disclosure of the facts behind that crime.

The second witness will be James Kelly, who is the father of Sean Kelly, who was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for his alleged involvement in the killing of two British army sol

diers in West Belfast in 1988, even though there was evidence that he was not at the scene of the fatal shooting.

Brenda Downes, whose husband, John, was killed by a plastic bullet in 1994, obtained an Honor's Degree from Queens University in 1993. In addition to her work with the United Campaign Against Plastic Bullets, Mrs. Downes is a women's development worker in the Beachmount area of Northern Ireland.

Edward J. Wallace is the national president of the Ancient Order of Hibernians in America. In addition to his 42 years of service with the Hibernians, Mr. Wallace has been active in the Knights of Columbus and is a member of the Pastoral Council of the St. Mary's Church in Clayton, New York, and we also know he is John McHugh's constituent.

And, finally, Mary Paglione is the national president of the Ladies' Ancient Order of Hibernians in America. Mrs. Paglione has also served as the national treasurer and secretary and vice-president during her 49 years of service to that organization.

And I would have to point out, John, that she is my constituent and very much welcome to the Subcommittee this morning. Michael, we will begin your testimony at this point.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL FINUCANE, PAT FINUCANE CENTER, SON OF PAT FINUCANE (DECEASED)

Mr. FINUCANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to preface my remarks this afternoon by extending on behalf of myself and my family very sincere gratitude for the invitation to testify here today. And I would also like to say that my remarks this afternoon will be a summary of a more lengthy document which I submitted to Congress sometime last week.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my fellow speakers, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Michael Finucane. I am 25. I am the eldest son of Patrick Finucane, who was brutally murdered by a pro-British Loyalist death squad on the 12th of February, 1989. My father, who was a human rights lawyer practicing in Belfast, was shot to death in front of me; my younger sister, Katherine, who was 12; and my younger brother, John, who was 8; my mother, Geraldine, was also shot.

We were all sitting down to our Sunday evening meal when the assassins kicked in our front door and shot my father 14 times in front of all of us. The Loyalist gunman said nothing and fled immediately afterwards, leaving my father lying dead and bleeding on our kitchen floor. The Loyalist gunman who murdered my father issued a statement saying that he was a member of the IRA. They had to say that. Their statement was a coverup. It was a lie.

My father was not a member of the IRA. He was not a political activist, nor was he a member of any political party. He was a solicitor who vigorously represented his clients within the law. He sought the protection of British justice for his clients. He represented anyone who needed his expertise from both sides of the community.

Shortly after my father's murder my mother said that such was his dedication and professionalism, he would have defended the

From an early age I was aware that my father was doing important work for both prisoners and people who were under arrest or injured as a result of the conflict in Ireland. He represented the families of those killed by the RUC and the British army, exposing the injustices of the British political and judicial system.

It was only after his murder that I gradually learned about the circumstances surrounding his death. His successful pioneering work in the area of civil rights was the true reason for his murder. The large number of people who came to our house and to my father's funeral was a testament to the work that he did. There were many people from outside Ireland who attended. Many of his friends from the United States attended. Lawyers who studied the Northern Ireland legal system and who had concerns about its repressive nature were there. Lawyers from South Africa who were familiar with civil rights abuses and State-sponsored political assassinations were there. They all talked about his work and were devastated by his death. It was a very difficult period for my family.

The suspicious and controversial circumstances surrounding my father's murder have already been investigated by many international human rights groups. The National Council for Civil Liberties carried out an investigation shortly after his murder in 1989. Helsinki Watch investigated his murder in 1991. The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights investigated his murder in 1992. All of these distinguished organizations called for a full independent judicial inquiry into my father's murder. They are joined in this call by Mr. Louis Joinet, former United Nations special rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers; Dr. Claire Palley, the British expert nominee to the United Nations on the Protection of Minorities; Peter Burns, the rapporteur in the United Kingdom for the Committee Against Torture; the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, Viscount Colville of Culross QC; Amnesty International; the International Commission of Jurists; Fédération Internationale des Droits de l'Homme; Committee on the Administration of Justice; Liberty; British-Irish Rights Watch; the Haldane Society; the Law Society of England and Wales; and the Association of the Bar of the city of New York.

The American State Department in its recent report to the Senate on human rights in the United Kingdom has also raised my father's murder for the second consecutive year.

My family and I are very concerned that the evidence available to us indicates a conspiracy at the very highest level of the British Government. Shortly before my father's murder, he was subjected to death threats from the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the political police force, which is 95 percent Unionist. It has been accused by many international observers of colluding with Loyalist death squads by providing information and support. The death threats against my father were recorded in his own handwriting when he took details from his clients who were held for interrogation in Castlereagh Interrogation Center. The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights were given these handwritten notes.

In January 1988, a complaint was recorded by Amnesty International that a man who was severely beaten in Castlereagh was told that Patrick Finucane should be shot dead by Loyalists. In the