Mr. SMITH. Mr. Kelly. Thank you.

Mr. KELLY. Initially, when we received the invite to come and address this committee we were well pleased and remain well pleased, and the intention of coming here was we realize that your voice, the voice of your government here, your committee here, could have wide-ranging implications for persuading, as you put it, your friends in the British Government to address our issues, the issues that we are here representing all the person cases.

Our hope remains that that in fact will be the case, that we have been able to convince you of the right of our case, and that you will take that, button up and carry it forth on the thing. However, we get conflicting readings from the British Government. On one hand, we hope. He seems open to persuasion, open to change, and on the other hand, we get the like of the government who have not addressed and could have addressed a couple of other issues, and not specifically our own. And so we are getting conflicting messages across. Nobody knows where we are going, what the strength of the government will be.

However, we cannot overemphasize your part in persuading your friends to adopt the right course of action here, and if that is of any help to you.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you for that insight. And Michael, thank you. Mrs. Downes.

Mrs. DOWNES. Sorry. I did not hear what the question was.

Mr. SMITH. The question had to do with whether or not this was an opportune time for the Blair Government to take action, whether or not there was hope and some expectation that a new day may be dawning. Will he seize this opportunity?

I think you were out of the room when I said that I can assure you that our committee will begin earnestly ratcheting up as much pressure as we can muster in this regard because I do believe that the time has come for change. Enough is enough. We need to speak out in a bipartisan way, which I believe we have been doing, but we will do so even more earnestly now.

Mrs. DOWNES. Well, coming here today I have expectations. I have high expectations that you will put enough pressure onto the British Government to expose the injustice and to ban the plastic bullet. Members of our campaign met with the Labour Government when they were not in power. They gave reassurances that once they did get into power, that they would then ban the plastic bullet. Since they have taken up their position, there has been no forwarding suggestion that they are going to ban the plastic bullet. So I do feel that pressure from yourselves could enhance their knowledge and to ban the bullet.

Mr. SMITH. One of the reasons why we thought you should be here is to amplify that message. I do believe that there is unanimity on the part of Members of Congress that the use of plastic bullets remains an abuse of rights, especially with 17 people dead, many of them children. It is an impermissible means of crown control. And so, again, that is why we wanted you at the witness table today, to try to amplify that message.

Mr. Wallace.

Mr. WALLACE. Like Senator Mitchell, our organization remains confident and optimistic that the peace process will get back on

track. With the efforts of President Clinton, who I had the opportunity to thank personally for his efforts, he took risks that previous Presidents who also claimed to have Irish ancestry would not take the risks to bring the abuses in Northern Ireland to light.

But with some of the changes such as the election of Prime Minister Blair and a Nationalist mayor of Belfast, some of the key players and increased focus on Northern Ireland and also with hearing what Congress is doing here in the United States, we remain optimistic that things would get back on track, and that overwhelming pressure would make a difference. As you said earlier, if the Brits claim to be our allies, then why do they not make some changes? It is not going to take a bandaid approach. It is going to take major surgery to have some real reforms to the situation.

Mrs. PAGLIONE. All I can say at this time is that I will have to put my faith and trust in Congressman Smith and his committee as a constituent of Congressman Smith. I know that any task that he has taken, he has worked to the utmost to find a solution. So I therefore can only pray that this committee will follow through and see that there will be peace and justice in Ireland.

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask one final question before yielding to Mr. Gilman who has to get back to the floor. I asked earlier about the repeal of the emergency powers legislation, the PTA and the EPA, and whether you think that is probable under the Blair Government. It seems to me and our previous witnesses spoke very eloquently about this-that human rights have to be central to the peace process, not a tangential issue, but right at the core. The ultimate confidence builder would be a bold initiative, perhaps in the area of human rights.

Prime Minister Blair has a golden opportunity, if only he would seize it, and perhaps he will. This could help move the peace process along mightily.

Regarding the repeal of the emergency powers, do you have hopes on that, Michael?

Mr. FINUCANE. Yes, I do. I think that many, many aspects of the emergency legislation that is in existence in Northern Ireland runs contrary to the spirit of the common law

Mr. KING. Would you speak up a bit, please?

Mr. FINUCANE. Sorry. I think it completely flies in the face of accepted international standards. It runs contrary to the common law as espoused by all other parts of Britain, and many, many aspects of the emergency provisions have been condemned by European courts and also other international courts.

From my point of view, I can say that one of the circumstances which contributed very, very strongly to my father's death was a particular provision in the emergency legislation which excludes lawyers from interrogation rooms while persons are under arrest and being questioned by the RUC. And I think that one way of perhaps persuading the RUC to act in a more professional manner when interrogating suspects, and also to establish another fundamental right of an arrested person, that he have his lawyer present during questioning, I think that particular part of the emergency legislation should be repealed.

And it is worth mentioning that the same law, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which runs throughout Britain and not just in

42-396 97-3

Northern Ireland, in the rest of Britain lawyers representing clients detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act have been allowed in to attend interviews. But the same piece of legislation when operated in Northern Ireland has been operated in a completely different fashion.

And it is also worth mentioning that the discretion as to whether to allow a lawyer to attend upon his client while in custody is a complete discretion at the level of a senior officer of the RUČ. The comments that I referred to earlier in my testimony I daresay would not have happened had my father been in the room.

Mr. SMITH. Just let me add something before Mr. Kelly responds. "At the Crossroads: Human Rights in Northern Ireland Peace Process," is a study put out by the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. In it, they make the point that when somebody from the RUC is charged with something-a soldier or police officer-they are never detained for 7 days. And they also point out that they have access to counsel of choice, which is never denied to agents of the State under investigation for offenses.

So when the accusation goes the other way against somebody from the RUC, full access to a legal counsel is provided.

Again, there is this double standard. I noted at the outset of the hearing that it is inconceivable to me that we continue to have a double standard when this mature democracy known as the United Kingdom, with all of its hallowed principles in the area of jurisprudence, would so cavalierly disregard them for people in Northern Ireland. But they do not disregard it for their own people.

Mr. FINUCANE. I think it is also worth mentioning that for the first 48 hours a person cannot have a lawyer at all, and no consultation is allowed, and it is usually in this 48 hours that the most damaging admissions are made by detainees when very often they are disoriented, confused, and under the severe pressure of rotating of RUC detectives who are trained to get admissions by any means at their disposal.

Mr. SMITH. Is most of it physical or psychological?

Mr. FINUCANE. These are cases of both types of pressure, and in some cases are well documented. The case I referred to in my testimony involved a man who after having been arrested was taken to Castlereagh Interrogation Center and was beaten so badly that one of his ear drums was perforated, and he spent some time in the hospital after that, after being released from Castlereagh.

Mr. KELLY. I would, of course, like to see the repeal of the Emergency Provisions Act because it was actually under the Emergency Provisions Act that the Diplock Courts were set up, and it was in the Diplock Courts that Sean was tried and convicted. And all independent observers who have studied the transcripts of the trial and the trial judgment all agree that if these three had come before a jury court, that they would not have been convicted.

I would welcome the repeal of the Emergency Provisions Act. However, whether it is likely to be repealed prior to any sort of settlement is a matter of conjecture. I do not know what Tony Blair he will do. He might have the strength to do that where he has not got people looking over his shoulder, where maybe with the backing of your own government he might feel that he is able to

Mrs. DOWNES. I would also like to see a repeal of the emergency courts. Again, when you look at the whole legitimacy of the police and the British soldiers under this legislation and these laws, they act with carte blanche and are not accountable to anybody, so I would also want repeal on those grounds.

Mr. WALLACE. I would agree that for long-term peace and justice that those particular laws, even though they are called emergency, would have to be repealed, even though many times this window dressing that they remove an offender it seems as though instead of just changing the players, you would have to change the rules also. And for fairness. We know our country is not perfect, but our system works, and they should take examples from us. Perhaps this committee might put together an advisory committee to go over and offer a bit of education in their justice system.

Mrs. PAGLIONE. I have to agree with the previous speakers and with Mr. Wallace that things will have to change. We will try to change here in our country and hopefully they will change in Ireland and the repeal of the act is taken care of.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much.

Mr. Gilman.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I regret I had to be on the floor. We have a little matter of the Most Favored Nation debate on with China, and my staff has brought me up to date.

I was just reading the background on John Downes' slaying, and Mrs. Downes, let me ask you, have you ever received a death certificate?

Mrs. DOWNES. I eventually got a death certificate 7 years later. Mr. GILMAN. You did receive it, you say?

Mrs. DOWNES. Seven years later.

Mr. GILMAN. And what did the death certificate show as cause of death?

Mrs. DOWNES. Hemorrhage to the heart.

Mr. GILMAN. Are you aware of where these plastic bullets are made? Have you ever heard any information about where they come from or where they are manufactured?

Mrs. DOWNES. They had been made here in the United States, a company in Alabama had been making the plastic bullets. Emma Groves traveled here a number of years ago, along with another young fellow from Derry who also lost an eye, and the company making them stopped.

Brocks in Scotland had been manufacturing plastic bullets. We campaigned for a number of years. They then ceased to make them. But a new company, Standard, took over their contract. We have with us additional information which will be submitted that has a whole list of places who are manufacturing these weapons.

Mr. GILMAN. Can you submit that information to our committee? Mrs. DOWNES. Yes.

Mr. GILMAN. We would welcome that.

Allegedly the purpose of these bullets is to try to deter the use of petrol bombs against the police, but we cannot understand why they have not been used against numerous reported instances of fire bombings in Great Britain.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask to be included in the record a list that I have of some recent riots involving petrol bombs in

England where no plastic bullets were ever used, if that could be made a part of the record.

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you very much.

[The material appears in the appendix.]

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Kelly, what did the British authorities do to investigate or follow up on the witness, the former school teacher of Sean who was on the site and said he did not go into the park where the soldiers were taken? Did they ever follow up on that?

Mr. KELLY. That schoolmaster has never been interviewed. And I met one of Sean's former teachers, and a lot of years after Sean was convicted, as a matter of fact after his first appeal was refused, and during the course of conversation it emerged that he had seen Sean outside the gates of Casement Park. This, he believes, was at the time when the gates to the park were closed, and the soldiers were inside the park. He gave a statement to a solicitor and that statement was forwarded on, and it was the Committee for Alliance of Lawyers from here in the States who actually included it in a submission to the then Secretary of State, Patrick Mayhew.

I was talking to Fergus, the school teacher, not less than 3 weeks ago, and up until that date he hadn't been interviewed.

Mr. GILMAN. But that statement was made part of the record? Mr. KELLY. That statement was made part of the record.

Mr. GILMAN. And who submitted this statement? You say the Alliance of Lawyers?

Mr. KELLY. The American Alliance of Lawyers for Justice in Ireland. It was part of the coordinator, Ed Lynch's submission to Patrick Mayhew looking for a referral of the cases back to the Court of Appeal.

Mr. GILMAN. What is the status now of your son's case? Is it being reviewed?

Mr. KELLY. That former Secretary of State Patrick Mayhew had actually considered the cases of the three men and decided to refer the case of Patrick Kane alone on the grounds of Patrick's slow IQ and his hearing difficulty. He refused the request to send Sean's and Michael Timmons' case back to the Court of Appeal.

The British Government set up, I believe it was in April, a new commission to look into miscarriage of justice and the case has been referred to them. However, how long their consideration will take, I have no way of knowing.

Mr. GILMAN. So at this point there is no further pending legal action.

Mr. KELLY. There is no further legal action.

Mr. GILMAN. I am just wondering, how could there be a common purpose with all three of these young men, who never knew each other, who met at the march for the first time, on the day of the funeral?

Mr. KELLY. Exactly my sentiments.

Sean and Michael did not know each other, and in fact the indictment was that they were charged with murder in that they aided and abetted others' murder. And when the trial judge submitted his written considered judgment he commented that the defendants could not be found guilty of aiding and abetting murder